New attributes for the “Digital Leader”? An analysis based on the views of Brazilian executives and researchers

Novos atributos para o “Líder Digital”? Uma análise baseada na visão de executivos e pesquisadores brasileiros

Abstract

Purpose: The rise of Revolution 4.0 raises several research questions; in the field of leadership, it could not be different. One of the most prominent issues in this field revolves around the attributes required of leaders in the context of Revolution 4.0. Therefore, this study sought to capture and measure the perception of Brazilian researchers and executives about the main attributes required of leaders in the digital age.

Originality/value: The study is relevant as it sheds light on the skills required of leaders in the digital age, identifying important attributes for effective leadership.

Design/methodology/approach: At first, an extensive literature mapping was carried out, resulting in a theoretical model of the Digital Leader around four dimensions: i) relational; ii) focus on people; iii) digital; iv) innovation and adaptability. Subsequently, quantitative research was applied to 77 executives and 14 researchers who published the most about leadership in Brazil.

Findings: The results reveal a high perception of importance for all attributes identified in the research model. Therefore, for both executives and researchers, the individual able to lead in Revolution 4.0 must have attributes linked to the relational, human, digital, and innovation dimensions. However, when comparing the dimensions, it is verified that the digital dimension appears with a lesser degree of importance. It is curious that in Revolution 4.0, skills more related to technology occupied the least privileged position. This finding raises questions related to the recent discussion around the need for a new leadership style in the context of Revolution 4.0.

Keywords: leadership styles; digital leadership; industry 4.0; skills; technology

Resumo

Objetivo:  A ascensão da Revolução 4.0 suscita diversas questões de pesquisa; no campo da liderança não poderia ser diferente. Uma das questões mais proeminentes nesse campo gira em torno dos atributos requeridos ao líder no contexto da Revolução 4.0. Portanto, este estudo buscou captar e mensurar a percepção de pesquisadores e executivos brasileiros sobre os principais atributos requeridos ao líder na era digital. Originalidade/valor: O estudo é relevante ao fornecer luzes em relação às competências requeridas ao líder na era digital, identificando atributos importantes para uma liderança efetiva. Design/metodologia/abordagem: Primeiramente foi realizado extenso mapeamento da literatura, resultando em um modelo teórico do Líder Digital em torno de quatro dimensões: i) relacional; ii) foco em pessoas; iii) digital; iv) inovação e adaptabilidade. Posteriormente, pesquisa quantitativa foi aplicada junto a 77 executivos e 14 dos pesquisadores que mais publicaram na área de liderança no Brasil.

Resultados:  Os resultados revelam elevada percepção de importância para todos os atributos identificados no modelo da pesquisa. Portanto, tanto para executivos quanto para pesquisadores, o indivíduo apto a liderar na Revolução 4.0 deve possuir atributos vinculados às dimensões relacional, humana, digital e de inovação. Entretanto, ao comparar as dimensões entre si, verifica-se que a dimensão digital aparece com menor grau de importância. Chama a atenção o fato de que na Revolução 4.0 as competências mais relacionadas à tecnologia ocuparam a posição menos privilegiada. Tal achado suscita questões relacionadas à discussão recente em torno da necessidade de um estilo de liderança novo no contexto da Revolução 4.0.

Palavras-chave: estilos de liderança; liderança digital; indústria 4.0; competências; tecnologia

INTRODUCTION

The increasing volume of studies surrounding the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Schwab, 2016) points to significant changes in individual-work- -organization relationships brought about by the recent technological revolution (Sant’Anna et al., 2022). Such literature indicates the revision of classical categories, such as organization, work, career, and leadership (Oberer & Erkollar, 2018; Puhovichova & Jankelova, 2021; Sant’Anna et al., 2022), which are the focus of this study

The 4.0 Revolution, also called Industry 4.0, can be defined as a new technological system shaped by the adoption and intersection of digital technologies, the web, and its connectivity, as well as the integration and digitization of the production/distribution of goods, services, data, and information. It is an intelligent industry characterized by the intensive use of digital technologies, advanced robotics, and artificial intelligence (Sartori et al. 2018; Israel, 2021).

Although many authors consider Industry 4.0 and the 4.0 Revolution to be similar terms, Borges et al. (2019) emphasize that there is a difference between the two. According to the authors, Industry 4.0 refers to the infrastructure and technology applied in this context. However, it is only one of the components of the 4.0 Revolution, which is the entire process of cultural, social, technological, and organizational changes resulting from technological advances (Borges et al., 2019).

Klaus Schwab (2016), founder of the World Economic Forum and one of the pioneers of this debate, emphasizes that the 4.0 Revolution will significantly change not only the business world but also how society lives, works and relates. This new system is unlike anything humanity has experienced before and will generate both benefits and challenges in equal measure (Schwab, 2016; Herder-Wynne et al., 2017).

Data show some transformations brought about by this technological revolution. A Deloitte opinion poll (2018) reveals that 71% of Brazilian executives believed that companies still did not have the necessary skills to compete in this environment and that their employees needed to be trained to acquire these new skills.

Data from the US agency responsible for monitoring the labor market estimate that about 75% of current jobs will not exist in 2030 (Anderson, 2012). Research by Frey and Osborne (2017) suggests that machines could replace 47% of US workers in a short period of time. A similar study conducted in Japan also concluded that 49% of jobs could be automated in the near future (Riminucci, 2018).

Academic studies have discussed the consequences of the 4.0 Revolution at different levels: social, technological, economic, organizational, and individual (Schwab, 2016; Sant’Anna et al., 2022; Puhovichova & Jankelova, 2021). At the organizational level, a Deloitte opinion poll (2018) on the impacts of the 4.0 Revolution indicates that, according to Brazilian and international managers’ perceptions, the transformation goes beyond the technological dimension. It also involves a change in the market and the business regulatory environment, a change in the organization’s strategy and business model, and a change in the profiles of professionals and the leadership styles demanded by organizations (Puhovichova & Jankelova, 2021; Sant’Anna et al., 2022).

Organizations are thus compelled to rethink their business models and traditional ways of creating value (Sant’Anna et al., 2022). Leadership plays a central role in mobilizing individuals toward the transformations that the company needs to promote. Therefore, leadership styles play a crucial role in the paradigm shift to the 4.0 Revolution (Puhovichova & Jankelova, 2021).

Some recent studies have pointed out that the rise of intelligent and digital technologies as disruptive forces leads to a redefinition of existing leadership approaches (Herder-Wynne et al., 2017; Oberer & Erkollar, 2018; Promsri, 2019; Kwiotkowska et al., 2021). Therefore, expanding digital transformation would require new leadership skills, referred to in the literature as Leadership 4.0 or digital leadership. According to Promsri (2019), Leadership 4.0 represents the concept of a leader in a digital age who needs skills different from the leadership styles adopted in the past.

However, there are doubts about the need for an entirely new leadership style in the context of the 4.0 Revolution. Some studies indicate that it combines new and old competencies (Erhan et al., 2022; Khaw et al., 2022; Tigre et al., 2023). The fact is that, due to the contemporary nature of the subject, there is no consensus regarding the characteristics required of individuals capable of leading in the context of the 4.0 Revolution. In addition, the vast majority of studies on this topic are theoretical in nature, based on literature reviews.

In this context, some research questions emerge: do existing approaches in the field of leadership theories account for this new context? Does digital leadership imply the creation of an entirely new theory or a mix of different existing theories? What would be the attributes of an effective leader in this new context? Since this is a contemporary topic, there are still no consistent answers to the questions presented.

To address these research gaps, this study’s goal is to capture and measure the perception of researchers and executives regarding the key attributes required of a leader in the digital age. Therefore, the guiding question for the research was: what are the important attributes of an individual capable of leading in the 4.0 Revolution, according to the views of Brazilian researchers and executives?

Although Industry 4.0 is a global movement, disparities in the adoption level of technologies brought by this recent technological revolution are observed among countries. An opinion poll by KPMG Brazil (2022) indicates that although Brazilian executives understand the concept of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the organizations they manage are still adapting to the stage referred to as 3.0, which includes machine automation and process digitalization. These executives also acknowledge that the transition to Industry 4.0 is irreversible and that developed countries are far ahead.

In this sense, this study is situated in the context of Brazilian organizations, particularly in the central-south region of the country, which concentrates on the main universities, technology, and innovation-generating organizations in Brazil. 77 executives and 14 researchers with a tradition in the field of leadership were interviewed to capture how they perceive the competencies required of a leader in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Regarding its relevance, this research contributes mainly to four directions. First, several studies have pointed out that the global discussion on leadership and the Fourth Industrial Revolution together is contemporary, important and necessary. That is, it is a current topic with many open research questions. Second, the study seeks to shed light on the competencies required of a leader in the digital age, identifying and corroborating important attributes for effective leadership from the perspective of Brazilian executives and researchers. Third, most studies dealing with the attributes of the Digital Leader are theoretical, unlike this study, which validated the attributes identified in the literature through empirical research. Hence, the fourth contribution arises: the study provides a comparative analysis of two groups’ views, researchers specializing in the field of leadership versus executives leading organizations in Southeast Brazil. It brings an unprecedented research focus to Brazil.

It is important to note that contemporary studies point to the emergence of Industry 5.0, an evolutionary stage of Industry 4.0 (Zizic et al., 2022). A report by the European Commission (2021) indicates that Industry 5.0 is not a technological leap but a way of seeing Industry 4.0 in a broader context, recognizing the relevance of three pillars: a human-centered approach, putting technology at the service of people and not the other way around; a sustainability and concern for the environment; a flexible and adapta-ble production systems capable of surviving crisis contexts, an emerging concern in the post-COVID-19 context.

Nevertheless, considering the scarcity of research on the competencies required of a leader in Industry 5.0, due to being a very recent discussion, the theoretical review of this study and the data collection process was based on a systematic literature review around the theme “skills required of the Digital Leader in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Also, considering what the European Commission report (2021) points out, Industry 5.0 visualizes Industry 4.0 in a broader context and not a new paradigm. Finally, it is worth noting that two of the pillars of Industry 5.0 (human-centered approach and adaptability) were included in the theoretical model of this research.

Beyond contextualizing this study, the following section encompasses the results of the studies identified in the literature review, presented in chronological order.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE DIGITAL LEADER

According to the literature, Leadership 4.0 or digital leadership refers to combining leadership competencies with digital technologies that support organizational decision-making processes (Tigre et al., 2023). According to Erhan et al. (2022) and Khaw et al. (2022), Digital Leaders are those who manage digital transformation processes consistently and adapt multiple leadership approaches (situational, transformational, transactional, relational, etc.). In this direction, Abbu et al. (2022) point out that digital leadership is multidimensional, encompassing elements of different leadership theories.

Although some studies have already introduced the notion of e-leadership before the rise of Revolution 4.0-a leader who coordinates individuals and teams virtually (DasGupta, 2011; Avolio et al., 2014)-, the Digital Leader goes far beyond the notion of virtual leadership. Both leadership styles face common challenges: how to overcome the physical distance from those they lead, how to communicate effectively with geographically dispersed staff, how to inspire followers electronically, how to build trust with someone the leader has never met in person, and so on (DasGupta, 2011). Therefore, the growth of virtual work has reshaped the way leaders interact with their followers (Bell et al., 2023). However, as will be highlighted throughout this section and summarized in Table 2, the skills of the Digital Leader are more varied, covering other dimensions in addition to those necessary for the leader who coordinates teams virtually.

Table 1
Leadership 4.0 competencies

No	Competency	Description
1	Quotient of Intelligence (QI)	The leader’s ability to think and reason allows leaders to learn and understand new business concepts and models.
2	Emotional Quotient (EQ)	The ability to understand and use emotions to promote higher levels of collaboration. Leaders with emotional intelligence exhibit traits such as self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, and social skills.
3	Digital Quotient (DQ)	The ability to drive rapid adaptation and transformation by creating and implementing a digital mindset within the organization.
4	Agility and Adaptability Quotient (AAQ)	The ability to be flexible and agile, adapting to the rapidly changing global context, reallocating resources to areas of opportunity, new business strategies, new regulations, and working in various cultures.
5	Sociocultural Quotient (SCQ)	The ability to operate in different transcultural environments.
6	Creativity and Innovation Quotient (CIQ)	The ability to create creative and learning environments, implementing a culture of innovation at different levels of the organization.

Mdluli & Makhupe (2017)

Table 2
Attributes of the Digital Leader

Dimensions	N	Attributes	Authors
Relational (focus on social/ collective)	1	Shared leadership that promotes high levels of collaboration	Mdluli and Makhupe (2017); Herder-Wynne et al. (2017); Oberer and Erkollar (2018); Kelly (2018); Abbu et al. (2022); Erhan et al. (2022); Tigre et al. (2023)
	2	Ability to develop transparent and trusting relationships	Herder-Wynne et al. (2017); Guzmán et al. (2020); Puhovichova and Jankelova (2021); Abbu et al. (2022); Erhan et al. (2022); Tigre et al. (2023)
	3	Communication and active listening skills	Petry (2018); Guzmán et al. (2020); Kwiotkowska et al. (2021); Puhovichova and Jankelova (2021); Tigre et al. (2023)
	4	Ability to establish relational networks	Petry (2018); Sartori et al. (2018); Erhan et al. (2022)
Focus on people (focus on the individual)	5	Ability to create conditions for people’s development	Herder-Wynne et al. (2017); Oberer and Erkollar (2018); Guzmán et al. (2020); Kwiotkowska et al. (2021); Puhovichova and Jankelova (2021)
	6	Ability to mobilize people toward objectives	Oberer and Erkollar (2018); Sartori et al. (2018); Suyanto et al. (2019); Abbu et al. (2022)
	7	Dealing with and accepting diversity	Herder-Wynne et al. (2017); Mdluli and Makhupe (2017); Cˇrešnar and Nedelko (2020); Karippur and Balaramachandran (2022)
	8	Ability to understand and deal with other people’s emotions and their own	Mdluli and Makhupe (2017); Kwiotkowska et al. (2021); Puhovichova and Jankelova (2021)
Digital	9	Ability to learn and apply new digital technologies	Oberer and Erkollar (2018); Sartori et al. (2018); Abbu et al. (2022); Tigre et al. (2023)
	10	Ability to lead teams in virtual environments	Avolio et al. (2014); Belitski and Liversage (2019); Tigre et al. (2023)
	11	Ability to implement a digital mindset in the organization	Mdluli and Makhupe (2017); Oberer and Erkollar (2018); Karippur and Balaramachandran (2022)
Innovation and Adaptability	12	Ability to create a culture of experimentation and learning	Mdluli and Makhupe (2017); Kelly (2018); Sartori et al. (2018); Herder-Wynne et al. (2017); Puhovichova and Jankelova (2021); Abbu et al. (2022); Karippur and Balaramachandran (2022); Erhan et al. (2022)
	13	Ability to adapt to rapidly changing contexts	Mdluli and Makhupe (2017); Petry (2018); Puhovichova and Jankelova (2021); Erhan et al. (2022); Tigre et al. (2023)
	14	Creative and innovative thinking	Mdluli and Makhupe (2017); Herder-Wynne et al. (2017); Sartori et al. (2018); Guzmán et al. (2020)
	15	Future vision	Oberer & Erkollar (2018); Sartori et al. (2018); Tigre et al. (2023)
	16	Accept and deal with complexity and uncertainty	Herder-Wynne et al. (2017); Petry (2018); Karippur & Balaramachandran (2022)

Herder-Wynne et al. (2017, p. 10) note that leaders need to be capable of “[...] navigating complexity, tolerating uncertainty and ambiguity, harnessing inner (re)sources of creativity and wisdom, connecting with a higher purpose and ultimately creating the conditions for self and others to flourish”. Additionally, the authors mention the need to replace the command and control-based leadership model with a shared leadership approach that promotes collaboration, autonomy, trust, and transparency. Finally, the authors emphasize the importance of learning through trial-and-error situations, valuing creative trust, embracing ambiguity and diversity, and establishing a systematic interaction process with the target audience (Herder-Wynne et al., 2017).

Mdluli and Makhupe (2017) conducted research involving African countries’ industry leaders to understand how leadership competencies have changed in the context of the 4.0 Revolution. The authors developed the “Molecular Leadership Competency Model” consisting of six key competencies of Leadership 4.0 (see Table 1).

Oberer and Erkollar (2018) developed a matrix of Leadership 4.0 styles considering two axes: i) concern for innovation/technology; ii) concern for people. In each quadrant, there is a leadership style that is more suitable for the leader. For example, an individual highly skilled in technology will likely prefer a technology-oriented leadership style, such as the technology leader 4.0. An individual seeking employee involvement in the decision-making process is more likely to prefer an employee-centered leadership style, such as the social leader 4.0.

Figure 1
Matrix of leadership styles

In general, a new leader would focus on the product and have little orien-tation toward people and technology. The social leader prioritizes rela-tionships with people and has the ability to create a friendly environment for employees, regardless of innovation and technology. The technological leader 4.0 focuses on the ability to determine how new technologies can be leveraged to create value in organizations. In this case, a focus on innovation and a lower concern for the human dimension may prevail. Finally, the Digi-tal Leader focuses on understanding how technology affects people and how the organizational model can combine technological and human aspects to create value. These would be the essential elements of digital leadership, making it the most productive style in the context of the 4.0 Revolution, according to Oberer and Erkollar (2018).

In a literature review-based study, Sartori et al. (2018) concluded that seven competencies are fundamental for a leader in Industry 4.0. It is important to note that the authors relied on the competency set discussed by Magaldi & Neto (2018), including: i) vision and future building: developing new solutions in new fields of knowledge based on a long-term perspective and digital technologies; ii) boldness and creativity; iii) tolerance for risk and error; iv) the ability to build a transformative purpose that inspires individuals; v) the ability to establish valuable relational networks; vi) valuing systematic interaction with the customer; vii) the ability to ask relevant questions.

Petry’s study (2018) mentions the key characteristics of digital leadership that should be considered in high volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) environments, including agile leadership (thinking about different scenarios and considering different options); participative leadership (valuing decentralization and autonomy); network leadership (developing relational connections); open leadership (communicating well, giving and receiving feedback); confident leadership (demonstrating confidence in employees).

Kelly’s study (2018) presents leadership styles more aligned with each Industrial Revolution (IR) phase. For the first IR, charismatic leadership relates to how a leader acts and mobilizes an organization through personal actions and characteristics. The second IR was strongly shaped by scientific management, where leaders take on a more top-down management style. In the third IR, leadership is more relational and transformational, stimulating follower autonomy for innovation and collaboration. Finally, the fourth IR would require a combination of some characteristics from the previous phase plus new attributes, going beyond transformational and relational leadership. Here, there is a need for a more specific focus on creating environments for experimentation, learning, and innovation.

The theoretical study by Suyanto et al. (2019) examines how the roles of transformational leadership reflect the character of the millennial generation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The authors point out that transformational leadership can help the millennial generation perform their roles optimally within the organization, as it is a leadership style based on inspiring principles and supporting people’s development. Such characteristics are highly useful in facilitating individuals’ adaptation to the constant changes resulting from the technological advancements of Industry 4.0. Furthermore, transformational leadership is suitable for organizations operating in dynamic environments that require high levels of creativity and innovation (Suyanto et al., 2019).

However, Suyanto et al. (2019) reveal that the expected results of transformational leadership can only be achieved when the leader inspires employees to be more conscious of the importance of common goals and collective interests, paying attention to employees’ self-esteem and self-reali-zation, providing constant challenges, and stimulating creativity. Addi-tionally, a transformational leader should develop the ability to identify different needs and aspirations of individuals.

Guzmán et al. (2020) conducted literature review mapping interna- -tional research on the main characteristics of leadership in the context of Indus-try 4.0, resulting in a model with four groups of skills: i) cognitive; ii) interpersonal; iii) business; and iv) strategic. The authors conceptualize the skills as follows: 1. cognitive skills, including focus, attention, creative thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving abilities; 2. interpersonal skills, related to communication and relationship-building; 3. business skills, including the ability to organize, negotiate and coordinate resources of different kinds; and 4. strategic skills, associated with building the mission, vision, and business strategies.

Guzmán et al.’s (2020) analysis indicates that the skills most suitable for the context of the 4.0 Revolution are cognitive, interpersonal, and strategic, with the exception of business skills, which had the lowest relationship with the characteristics of the 4.0 Revolution. In the cognitive skills, the main characteristics identified were the leader’s communication ability and active listening, encouraging collaboration, and constructing a culture of feedback and openness.

In group interpersonal leadership, the main skills are negotiation, the abili-ty to make agreements that favor collective objectives; persuasion, the ability to inspire people to adopt an open and digital mindset; social perception, the ability to understand how to develop people and ensure an environment of trust and collaboration. For strategic leadership, the most highlighted skills were a leader capable of collaboratively building a vision for the future and the ability to encourage problem-solving through experimentation (Guzmán et al., 2020).

Kwiotkowska et al. (2021) conducted a study in the energy industry to examine the relationship between leadership competencies (intellectual, managerial, emotional) and the effectiveness of Leadership 4.0. The authors used the following leadership dimensions as a reference: intellectual competencies (critical analysis, self-vision, strategic perspective); managerial competencies (communication, resources and results management, team development, and empowerment); socioemotional competencies (self-awareness, sensitivity, ability to influence and motivate).

The study’s results indicate that leaders can combine different leadership styles. The combination of these two competency groups in the sector studied seems especially relevant: managerial competencies with intellectual or emotional competencies. In other words, managerial competencies are very important in the conditions of Industry 4.0, but they are not viewed as sufficient on their own and should be combined with intellectual and socioemotional competencies (Kwiotkowska et al., 2021).

Another theoretical research, this one by Puhovichova and Jankelova (2021), points out that the main attributes of Leadership 4.0 include the ability to communicate and understand change, defining methods aligned with corporate culture, mentoring, and coaching ability, a focus on collective interests; the ability to create a culture of openness, learning, transparency, and trust; a focus on people. Within the leadership matrix proposed by Oberer and Erkollar (2018), Puhovichova and Jankelova (2021) reiterate that the Digital Leader represents the most suitable style for the 4.0 Revolution environment and that this leader must have cognitive, interpersonal, and strategic skills.

A study by Karippur and Balaramachandran (2022) analyzed the effectiveness of some attributes of digital leadership, as shown in Table 2 below, through an applied study with a sample of leaders and senior managers in the Asia-Pacific region. The four attributes with the greatest impact on leader-ship effectiveness the research showed were creating a clear digital vision, a strong focus on developing innovative environments, aligning digitization strategy with corporate strategy, and the ability to formulate a digital strategy.

Abbu et al. (2022) interviewed 13 leaders within the USA and German organizations to determine which qualities enhance the performance of Digi-tal Leaders. The authors start from the premise that digital leadership is multidimensional, comprising elements of different leadership styles, and develop a scale of 15 dimensions required for Digital Leaders, as follows: honesty, humility, courage to change, ethical behavior, growth mindset, transparent agenda, data focus, ability to inspire individuals and teams, digi-tal capabilities, storytelling, positive attitude, knowledge sharing, participative leadership style, skills acquisition, and ability to achieve results.

A bibliometric study by Tigre et al. (2023) pointed out that although many essential leadership capabilities remain the same, the unique characteristics of the current digital transformation also require new skills. The main change is related to the importance of innovation and adaptability in the context of digital transformation. The authors highlighted the following as central to the Digital Leader: i) a focus on people and interpersonal relationships (communication, transparency, trust); ii) personal aspects (the ability to manage one’s inner self-deal with one’s emotions); iii) long-term vision (innovation, the ability to provide a collaborative vision and direction); iv) task achievement, i.e., the ability to achieve the desired result, through experience and digital skills.

Based on the literature review conducted, a framework synthesizing the main dimensions surrounding the Digital Leader was developed (Table 2). This table portrays digital leadership as a multidimensional phenomenon comprising elements from different leadership styles. Drawing from pre-vious approaches in the field of leadership, it can be observed that the Digi-tal Leader encompasses competencies strongly discussed in the behavioral approach, such as the notion of people orientation (the attention the leader gives to the needs, interests, and well-being of subordinates) (Blake et al., 1964).

Moreover, it carries elements of transformational leadership, indicating that the leader is interested in the emotional aspect of the leader-follower relationship and considers leadership not as a one-way phenomenon: the process occurs in a two-way direction. It depends on both the leader and the follower for mutual goals and expectations to be achieved (Carvalho Neto et al., 2012). It also adheres to the assumptions of the situational approach to leadership, which considers that no single leadership model is effective in all situations. Leaders must adapt their leadership style according to the particular needs of the situation and the people involved (Hersey et al., 1979). Finally, without exhausting the subject, it retrieves assumptions from relational leadership that recognize that leadership generates changes through effective relationships (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

METHODOLOGY

With the aim of measuring the perception of researchers and executives regarding the key attributes of the Digital Leader, a quantitative research approach was chosen. The objective was to bring objective data on the degree of importance these actors attribute to each digital leadership dimension previously identified in the literature review. Based on the responses, it was possible to identify the most and least relevant attributes for the phenomenon of digital leadership from the perspectives of researchers and executives, enabling a comparative analysis between such perceptions.

The research was subdivided into two stages: i) the first involved a lite-rature mapping in Leadership 4.0; ii) in the second phase, field research was conducted to capture the perception of Brazilian researchers and executives. The largest international database of peer-reviewed literature abstracts and citations was consulted for the literature mapping: Scopus. This database has a collection of over 22,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers, covering various fields of knowledge.

Data collection was conducted on 27/04/2023 using the search mechanism of Scopus using two keywords (“digital leadership” or “leadership 4.0”) in the document title, without temporal delimitation, resulting in 47 publications within the area of “business, management, and accounting.” It was decided to limit the analysis to publications within the area of “business, management, and accounting,” which is precisely the focus of this article. It is worth noting that a query conducted in the main national database (CAPES [Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior]) on April 27, 2023, identified only one executive letter with the title “digital leadership” by Figueiredo (2021). Therefore, this work primarily focused on international publications.

The methodological path for mapping the literature is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3
Description of the methodological path

Phases	Description
Choosing the database and identifying keywords	Scopus Base, in the search for publications that contain one of the two expressions in English in the title: “digital leadership” or “leadership 4.0”. Search code: (TITLE (“leadership 4.0”) OR TITLE (“digital leadership”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”))
Definition of selection criteria	There is no temporal delimitation, as it is a contemporary topic. Publications limited to the area of “Business, Management and Accounting”: 47 documents
Data collection, organization, and analysis	Import of publications into Mendeley software to organize references - Number of publications found: 47 - Number of publications removed due to duplicity: 7 - Number of publications tracked (title and abstract reading): 40 - Number of publications removed due to little proximity to the central theme (skills required of the Digital Leader): 13 - Number of publications read in full and included in the sample: 27 - Identification of the most cited works

Morais et al. (2022)

Based on the list of attributes of the Digital Leader, which were sub-divided into four dimensions (i. Relational; ii. People focus; iii. Digital; iv. Innovation and Adaptability), a questionnaire with 16 Likert scale questions was developed from (1) being not important to (5) being very important. Based on the perception of importance, each respondent indicated how much each listed attribute is related to the notion of digital leadership.

In addition to the Likert scale questions, two open questions were added at the beginning of the script with the expectation that respondents would freely inform which expressions emerge when talking about digital leadership. Furthermore, respondents were asked open-ended what competencies were necessary for leaders in the Fourth Industrial Revolution before presenting the attributes identified in the literature with the intention of avoiding bias. The responses obtained in these two open questions allowed for the elaboration of a word cloud with the expressions most strongly mentioned by researchers and executives.

Questions about the position and sector of the company’s activity were included in the instrument applied to the executives. The aim was to include professionals in leadership positions. Finally, it is emphasized that no personal information was requested in both scripts in order to preserve anonymity.

To select the researchers who would participate in the research, a survey was conducted in the electronic library SPELL®, a repository of scientific articles coordinated by ANPAD (National [Brazilian] Association of Postgraduate and Research in Administration). Brazilian researchers with the highest number of published articles in the leadership area were conside-red. Of the 20 researchers who published the most, 14 responses were obtained and analyzed (70% return).

The 14 professors hold a minimum doctoral degree and are affiliated with six federal universities and 14 private universities located in the Southeast and South regions of the country (Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul). It is emphasized that no additional information about the researchers’ characterization was requested to preserve anonymity.

To identify executives, professionals affiliated with professional master’s degrees and leadership training courses from four renowned business schools located in four cities in the Southeast of Brazil (Belo Horizonte, Nova Lima, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo) were considered. Of the 90 execu-tives identified and approached by email, 77 participated in the research (85%).

Regarding the sector of activity of the executives, the data reveal that the companies they are affiliated with operate in various sectors. Twenty-seven different segments appeared, with the most representative being: human resources and people development (14%); public sector (12%); commerce (10%); consulting (8%); education (6%); technology (6%); financial (5%). Table 4 includes the positions that executives hold in these organizations.

Table 4
Positions held by executives

Position	Number	%
Manager	29	38%
Director	29	25%
Coordinator	14	18%
Consultant	6	8%
Partner	5	6%
CEO	4	5%
Total	77	100%

To analyze the responses obtained in the questionnaires, the frequency obtained at each level of the Likert scale was calculated to identify the most and least relevant digital leadership attributes in the perception of executives and researchers. Firstly, an individual analysis of the responses obtained by each group was conducted, and subsequently, a comparative analysis was performed between executives’ views versus researchers, aiming to highlight convergent and divergent points.

It is noteworthy that the central objective of the research was to measure the perception of executives and renowned researchers regarding the key attributes required of leaders in the digital era. This allows them to rank each item on the Digital Leader scale in order of importance. Therefore, the collected data provided the basis for conducting basic descriptive statistics, not correlation tests and other techniques, which can be improved in future research.

For the analysis of the data obtained in the two open questions, two tools were used: i) calculation of the frequency of the most mentioned expressions in the online tool called Linguistica (http://linguistica.insite.com.br/corpus.php); ii) generation of a word cloud illustrating the most required competencies of the Digital Leader in the WordClouds tool (https://www.wordclouds.com/).

DATA ANALYSIS

Results obtained from the executive’s group

When asked in an open question about the main words that come to mind when thinking about digital leadership, the three most mentioned expressions by executives were empathy (19 mentions), adaptability (14 mentions), and innovation (14 mentions). Therefore, the concept most mentioned by the executives is linked to the “people focus” dimension, that is, the leadership’s ability to understand others’ perspectives and deal with people’s emotions (empathy) (Mdluli & Makhupe, 2017; Kwiotkowska et al., 2021; Puhovichova & Jankelova, 2021). Two expressions of the “innovation and adaptability” dimension emerge (Mdluli & Makhupe, 2017; Petry, 2018; Puhovichova & Jankelova, 2021).

The results regarding the main competencies required of the Digital Leader corroborate aspects already highlighted in the previous question about the relevance of empathy, adaptability, and innovation in the executives’ view. Additionally, noteworthy is the importance they attribute to communication skills, which occupied the first position (Table 5). At this point, the executives mentioned expressions such as open and transparent dialogue, assertive communication (the leader’s ability to communicate in a direct and easily understandable manner), active listening, corroborating studies by Petry (2018); Guzmán et al. (2020); Kwiotkowska et al. (2021); Puhovichova and Jankelova (2021); Tigre et al. (2023).

Table 5
The four most frequently mentioned expressions regarding competencies required of a Digital Leader

Position	Words	Occurrences
1	Communication	20
2	Empathy	17
3	Adaptability	16
4	Innovation	16

In the responses, the executives gave in the Likert scale dimensions, a high perception of importance was found for all dimensions and attributes identified in the research model. None of the 16 attributes analyzed received a rating of “not important” in the view of the 77 executives. The attribute that received the highest “neutral” ratings was the “ability to learn and apply new digital technologies” within the digital dimension. The data thus seem to indicate that the attributes identified in the theoretical model are relevant for leaders in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, according to the executives’ perspective.

Within the relational dimension, the attribute that was rated as “very important” by most researchers (73 out of 77 executives) was the “ability to develop transparent and trustful relationships.” In the people focus dimension, the “ability to mobilize people towards objectives” was evaluated as “very important” by 67 out of 77 executives. In the digital dimension, the “ability to lead teams in virtual environments” was considered “very important” by 51 out of 77 researchers. In the innovation dimension, the “ability to adapt to rapidly changing contexts” was assessed as “very important” by 60 out of 77 executives.

Therefore, among the list of 16 attributes, the four identified in Figure 2 obtained the highest consensus among executives regarding their relevance for effective leadership in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Figure 2
% of executives who consider attributes “very important” for the Digital Leader

On the other hand, the attribute that received the lowest consensus among executives regarding its relevance to the Digital Leader was the “abili-ty to implement a digital mindset in the organization” (52%).

Executives were also asked if any attributes were not mentioned in the previously identified list. Some executives mentioned the following expressions in the open questions: “spiritual dimension,” “ability to deliver results with agility,” “ability to positively influence organizational culture,” “mediator of relationships,” “continuous learning,” and “transformational leadership.”

Results obtained from the group of researchers

When asked in an open question about the main words that come to mind when thinking about digital leadership, the most frequently mentioned expression by researchers was “technology,” linked to the “digital” dimension of the research’s theoretical model, which refers to the leader’s ability to apply new technologies to organizations. Following closely were the expressions “flexibility” and “innovation,” which are associated with the “innovation and adaptability” dimension, and “remote management” linked to the “digital” dimension.

The results regarding key competencies required for digital leadership, while corroborating the importance of “knowledge of technology” (see Table 6 below), highlight the researchers’ perception of the relevance of relational competencies (leader’s ability to connect with others and generate positive results from those connections) (Herder-Wynne et al., 2017; Guzmán et al., 2020) and emotional aspects (the leader’s ability to understand and manage people’s and their own emotions) (Mdluli & Makhupe, 2017; Kwiotkowska et al., 2021; Puhovichova & Jankelova, 2021). Regarding relationships, which was the most mentioned aspect in open responses, researchers emphasized the importance of a leader-follower relationship based on transparency and active listening.

Table 6
The most frequently mentioned expressions regarding competencies required for a Digital Leader

Position	Words	Occurrences
1	Relationship	5
2	Emotional intelligence	4
3	Technology knowledge	3
4	Teamworking	3

Analyzing the answers given by the researchers in the dimensions of the Likert scale, a high perception of importance was found for all dimensions and attributes identified in the theoretical model, as well as observed in the executives’ responses. Only one attribute among the 16 analyzed received a classification of “no importance” in the view of a researcher, particularly the “ability to create conditions for people’s development”. The data seems to indicate, therefore, that in the researchers’ view, the attributes identified in the model are relevant to the leader in the context of Revolution 4.0.

Within the relational dimension, the attribute that was classified as “very important” for the vast majority of participating researchers (13 out of 14) was the “ability to communicate and actively listen.” In the focus on people dimension, the “ability to understand and deal with people’s and one’s own emotions” was assessed as “very important” for 12 of the 14 researchers. In the digital dimension, “the ability to lead teams in virtual environments” was considered “very important” for 11 of the 14 researchers. Finally, in the innovation dimension, “the ability to adapt to rapidly changing contexts” was assessed as very important by 12 of the 14 researchers.

Therefore, among the 16 attributes listed, the four indicated in Figure 3 were those with the greatest consensus regarding their relevance for leadership in Revolution 4.0.

Figure 3
% of researchers who consider the attributes “very important” for the Digital Leader

On the other hand, the attribute that received the lowest percentage of consensus among researchers regarding its relevance to the Digital Leader was “the need for the leader to envision the future” (57%) within the “innovation and adaptability” dimension.

Researchers were also asked if any attributes were not mentioned in the previously identified list. Some researchers noted the following expressions in the open comments: “a focus on more subjective relationships,” “dealing with human subjectivity,” “emotional intelligence,” “organizational ambidexterity,” “self-awareness,” and “results-oriented.”

Comparative analysis: Executives vs. researchers

The first open question about the words that emerge when thinking about digital leadership reveals seemingly different views among the assessed groups. While empathy was the most cited expression by executives, technology was the most mentioned by researchers. However, the technological dimension in the other research questions, both open and closed, appears to be of lesser importance to researchers.

On the other hand, the results of the open question about the main competencies required for a Digital Leader, both in the case of executives and experts, highlight the importance that both groups attach to relational aspects. If executives chose communication skills as one of the main required competencies, researchers emphasized the importance of relationships. Another point of convergence was the second expression mentioned openly by both audiences, specifically empathy by executives and emotional intelligence by researchers. These expressions share the importance of the leader being able to understand the perspective of others and deal with people’s emotions.

Figure 4 illustrates the main expressions mentioned by the two researched groups regarding the competencies required for the Digital Leader.

Figure 4
Competencies required for the Digital Leader

Analyzing the responses provided by the researchers and executives within the Likert scale dimensions, it was observed that both groups perceive all dimensions and attributes identified in the theoretical model as highly important, reaffirming the attributes identified in the literature review.

Executives and researchers were also asked to choose the most important dimension for a leader in the digital era among the four studied (relational, people-centered, digital, and innovation). Figure 5 below illustrates the findings, demonstrating consensus in the responses. Both groups ranked “people-centered” as the most important dimension, while the “digital” dimension was considered the least relevant by both.

Figure 5
Theoretical model dimensions in order of importance as shown in the study

Analyzing the open responses regarding the existence of other attribu-tes not listed in the theoretical model of the research, the findings reveal only two new aspects: the notion of “spiritual leadership” mentioned by an executive and the notion of “organizational ambidexterity” mentioned by a researcher (the organization’s ability to balance a focus on innovation and operational efficiency). However, it is worth noting that the leader’s innovation capability is part of the discussion incorporated into the “innovation and adaptability” attributes of the model. Therefore, to some extent, the proposed theoretical model encompasses part of this discussion.

The other expressions mentioned, although phrased differently, are encompassed in some attributes of the model. For example, “a focus on more subjective relationships” and “dealing with human subjectivity” are reflected in the people-focused dimension of the theoretical model; “emotional intelligence and self-awareness” are reflected in the attribute “ability to understand and deal with people’s and one’s own emotions”; “mediator of relationships” is reflected in the relational dimension; “continuous learning” is reflected in the innovation and adaptability dimension.

Table 7 gathers the percentages of “very important” obtained for each attribute in the four dimensions of the model, comparing the views of executives versus researchers. Two attributes of the relational dimension were the ones that obtained the highest consensus in both evaluated groups: the ability to develop transparent and trustful relationships (for 95% of participating executives) and the ability to communicate and actively listen (for 93% of participating researchers). On the other hand, the ability to implement a digital mindset in the organization (52% of executives) and future vision (57% of researchers) were the attributes with less consensus regarding their importance.

Table 7
Percentage of executives and researchers considering “very important” attributes for the Digital Leader

Dimension	N	Attributes	Researchers	Executives	Perception difference
Relational	1	Ability to share the leadership, to promote high levels of collaboration	79%	82%	3%
	2	Ability to develop transparent and trusting relationships	71%	95%	23%
	3	Ability to communicate and actively listen	93%	90%	3%
	4	Ability to establish relational networks	71%	79%	8%
Focus on people	5	Ability to create conditions for people’s development	64%	81%	16%
	6	Ability to mobilize people toward goals	71%	87%	16%
	7	Ability to deal with-and accept-diversity	79%	82%	3%
	8	Ability to understand and handle people’s emotions as well as one’s own	86%	84%	1%
Digital	9	Ability to learn and apply new digital technologies	64%	61%	3%
	10	Ability to lead teams in virtual environments	79%	66%	12%
	11	Ability to implement a digital mindset in the organization	64%	52%	12%
Innovation and Adaptability	12	Ability to create a culture of experimentation and learning	79%	77%	2%
	13	Ability to adapt to rapidly changing contexts	86%	78%	8%
	14	Creative and innovative thinking	71%	64%	8%
	15	Future vision	57%	69%	12%
	16	Accepting and dealing with complexity and uncertainty	86%	77%	9%
Open question: Words that emerge when thinking about digital leadership			1) Technology 2) Flexibility 3) Innovation 4) Remote management	1) Empathy 2) Adaptability 3) Innovation 4) Autonomy	-
Open question: Skills required of the Digital Leader			1) Relationship 2) Emotional intelligence 3) Technology knowledge 4) Team working	1) Communication 2) Empathy 3) Adaptability 4) Innovation	-

Concerning the open questions, the comparative analysis allows us to highlight that the expression “innovation” appears in the responses of both executives and researchers in question 1 (words that come to mind when thinking about digital leadership) and in question 2 (competencies of the Digital Leader), particularly from the executives’ perspective. Although it does not occupy the first position in terms of citation frequency, it is the only word that appears in both questions.

Finally, it is worth noting that comparing the open responses given in question 2, it is observed that the relational dimension emerges as the most relevant, as communication skills from the executives’ perspective and the ability to establish relational networks from the researchers’ perspective are the most important competencies for individuals capable of leading in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

CONCLUSIONS

Taking the central objective of the study, the results reveal a high perception of importance for all dimensions and attributes identified in the theoretical model of the research. None of the 16 attributes were rated as “not important” by the 77 executives, and only 1 out of 14 researchers considered the leader’s ability to create conditions for people’s development “not relevant.” These findings, to some extent, corroborate the four dimensions and 16 attributes identified in the theoretical model of the research.

In this regard, the results indicate that executives and researchers capable of leading in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) must possess and develop attributes linked to the relational, human, digital, and innovative dimensions. This finding supports studies indicating that digital leadership is multidimensional, encompassing attributes from different leadership theories (Abbu et al., 2022; Erhan et al., 2022; Khaw et al., 2022).

On the other hand, leaders are expected to possess a diverse and complex set of attributes and competencies across the human, relational, digital, and innovative spheres. This revives the debate surrounding the expectation of a leader as a “savior,” a “superhero,” one who possesses a diversity of competencies and “special” talents.

However, when comparing the dimensions among themselves, it is observed that both executives and researchers attributed greater importance to the people-focused dimension, followed by the relational dimension, then the innovation dimension, and finally, the digital dimension with the least degree of importance.

As to the open questions, the order of importance is reversed: the relational dimension emerges as the most relevant, as communication skills from the executives’ perspective and the ability to establish relational networks for researchers are the most important competencies for individuals capable of leading in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0). Following this, expressions related to the people-focused dimension emerge, such as emotional intelligence and empathy, represented in the theoretical model as the ability to understand and deal with people’s emotions as well as one’s own.

Therefore, although in reverse order in the open and closed questions, the two most relevant dimensions for leadership in the digital era, according to both executives and researchers, are the relational dimension and the focus on people, aspects already emphasized in leadership theoretical approaches that emerged well before Industry 4.0 (a term first used in 2011 in Germany).

It’s interesting to note that in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, characterized by the intensive use of digital and intelligent technologies, the competencies most related to technology occupy the least privileged position when compared to the other dimensions of the theoretical model. This finding raises questions related to the recent discussion about the need for a new theory of leadership for the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Are new leadership competencies really necessary? Or will the digitally capable leader in this new environment combine old and new competencies? These questions deserve further exploration in future studies.

Another curious finding is the emphasis on the human dimension, an aspect already highlighted in the behavioral approach to leadership, whose discussion began in the 1960s (Blake et al., 1964), indicating a debate that has been ongoing for over 60 years. The relational dimension, considered the second most relevant, lies at the heart of the discussion of new leadership theories and is a more contemporary approach that grew after 2000.

Studies in the field of relational leadership consider that no previous approach has placed multilateral relationships at the center of the discussion. The relational school takes multilateral relationships as the central object of investigation, going beyond the dyadic leader-follower relationship and considering the influential organizational/societal environments in leadership dynamics (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

In this direction, it is worth commenting on the findings obtained in the relational dimension. The results of the open question about the main competencies required for a Digital Leader show that executives and experts highlighted the importance placed on relational aspects. Communication is the most mentioned word by executives, and relationship is the most mentioned by researchers. This view is corroborated by the importance attribu-ted by both groups of respondents to the following attributes of the relational dimension: 95% of executives value the ability to develop transparent and trustful relationships while 93% of researchers consider the ability of communication and active listening of the leader as very relevant.

Finally, another evidence that corroborates the importance of the four dimensions of the theoretical model of the research is the findings obtained in the open question about identifying attributes that were not mentioned in the previously identified list. All mentioned aspects, except for the “spiri-tual dimension” mentioned by 1 of the 77 participating executives, are linked to one of the 16 attributes of the model. At this point, it is suggested that future studies emphasize the spiritual dimension-alternatively, even including an attribute addressing this dimension in the initially proposed theoretical model.

Regarding future studies, in addition to those already reported in this section, it is suggested that new research explore the associations between the notion of digital leadership and some previous approaches in the field of leadership. Elements consistent in the theoretical model of the research come from previous perspectives, such as elements of the behavioral approach to leadership, the situational approach, and the relational approach. There are approaches that can be further explored in future studies with the aim of answering how new or not the competencies required for a leader capable of leading in the Fourth Industrial Revolution are. Another point that deserves further exploration is the recent discussion about Industry 5.0, which would be an evolutionary stage of Industry 4.0 (Zizic et al., 2022). To what extent will the pillar of sustainability of Industry 5.0, for example, be required of leaders in this new environment? Questions like these can be the subject of future studies.

Finally, new studies could take as a starting point the research instrument adopted and apply it to researchers from other regions of Brazil (North, Northeast, and Midwest), who may have divergent views regarding the important attributes for a leader in the digital era. Brazil is a diverse, continental country, which could affect the findings.

Additionally, variables can be added to the questionnaire to allow for statistical tests that analyze the relationship between the sector of activity, position held, age, gender of the respondents, and the perceived relevance of the four groups of attributes of the Digital Leader. For example, Generation Z professionals (age variable) may assign more weight to the digital dimension. Professionals in technology-intensive sectors may consider digital and innovation more relevant variables. People in executive positions may value more relational aspects. Questions like these can be investigated in future research.

Regarding the practical implications of this study, it is worth noting that leadership development has been recognized as one of the main concerns at the strategic level of organizations for decades (Sant’Anna et al., 2012). In addition, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a recent phenomenon that has brought numerous challenges and uncertainties for decision-makers in organi-zations. Studies indicate that the transformations already brought about by the Fourth Industrial Revolution are much more radical than the changes brought about by previous revolutions and that it will significantly change not only the business world but also the way society lives, works, and relates (Schwab, 2016; Herder-Wynne et al., 2017).

Therefore, understanding the competencies required for individuals capable of leading in this new context can provide insights for leadership development programs in organizations. The study’s results reinforce the relevance of the four dimensions of the theoretical model (relational, human, digital, and innovative) in the view of executives and researchers. Therefore, leadership training programs can include modules focused on developing these competencies. Recruitment and selection processes for leaders in organizations can also be based on these four significant sets of attributes and their 16 sub-items, as per the theoretical model of the research.

However, this study has limitations. The main concern is using basic statistics to present and analyze the research data. More sophisticated techniques were not used, such as regression analysis, cluster analysis, correlation analysis, hypothesis testing, and statistical determination of sample size. Based on the dimensions and attributes of the proposed model, it is suggested that new studies deepen and test these dimensions by adopting more relevant statistical techniques.

• RAM does not have information about open data regarding this manuscript.
• RAM does not have permission from the authors or evaluators to publish this article’s review.

REFERENCES

• Abbu, H., Mugge, P., Gudergan, G., Hoeborn, G., & Kwiatkowski, A. (2022). Measuring the human dimensions of digital leadership for successful digital transformation. Research-Technology Management, 65(3), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2022.2048588
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2022.2048588
• Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The new industrial revolution Random House.
• Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003
• Belitski, M., & Liversage, B. (2019). E-Leadership in small and medium-sized enterprises in the developing world. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(1), 64-74. ISSN 1927-0321.
• Bell, B. S., McAlpine, K. L., & Hill, N. S. (2023). Leading virtually. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 339-362. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-050115
  » https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-050115
• Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., Barnes, L. B., & Greiner, L. E. (1964). Breakthrough in organization development (p. 136). New York: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.
• Borges, L. G. N. L., Sales, A. B., Carbhiaki, G., & Viana, L. D. (2019). De-- senvolvimento de modelagem de liderança para a Revolução 4.0. FTT Journal of Engineering and Business, (5). file:///C:/Users/Daniela%20diniz/Downloads/admin,+02_Desenvolvimento+de+modelagem.pdf
• Carvalho Neto, A. C., Tanure, B., Santos, C. M. M., & Lima, G. S. (2012). Executivos brasileiros: Na contramão do perfil deificado da liderança transformacional. Revista de Ciências da Administração, 14(32), 35-49. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2735/273523616003.pdf
  » https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2735/273523616003.pdf
• Črešnar, R., & Nedelko, Z. (2020). Understanding future leaders: How are personal values of generations Y and Z tailored to leadership in Industry 4.0? Sustainability, 12, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114417
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114417
• DasGupta, P. (2011). Literature review: e-Leadership. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4(1), 1-36. https://www.regent.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/dasGupta_V4I1_pp1-36.pdf
  » https://www.regent.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/dasGupta_V4I1_pp1-36.pdf
• Deloitte. (2018). Preparing tomorrow’s workforce for the Fourth Industrial Revo-lution Johannesburg: Creative Services.
• Erhan, T., Uzunbacak, H. H., & Aydin, E. (2022). From conventional to digi-tal leadership: Exploring digitalization of leadership and innovative work behavior. Management Research Review, 45(11), 1524-1543. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2021-0338
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2021-0338
• European Economic and Social Committee. Industry 5.0 (2021). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/research-area/industrial-research-and-innovation/industry-50_en
  » https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/research-area/industrial-research-and-innovation/industry-50_en
• Figueiredo, J. A. L. (2021). Os desafios de uma liderança digital. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 25, e-210043. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2021210043.en
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2021210043.en
• Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological forecasting and social change, 114, 254-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
• Guzmán, V. E., Muschard, B., Gerolamo, M., Kohl, H., & Rozenfeld, H. (2020). Characteristics and skills of leadership in the context of Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing, 43, 543-550.
• Herder-Wynne, F., Amato, R., & Weerd, F. U. (2017). Leadership 4.0: A review of thinking, Research Report
• Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Natemeyer, W. E. (1979). Situational leadership, perception, and the impact of power. Group & organization studies, 4(4), 418-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117900400404
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117900400404
• Israel, C. R. Q. (2021). Uma análise sobre liderança: Da teoria dos traços à liderança 4.0. Boletim Do Gerenciamento, 24(24), 21-30. https://nppg.org.br/revistas/boletimdogerenciamento/article/view/557
  » https://nppg.org.br/revistas/boletimdogerenciamento/article/view/557
• Karippur, N. K., & Balaramachandran, P. R. (2022). Antecedents of effective digital leadership of enterprises in Asia Pacific. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 26 https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v26i0.2525
  » https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v26i0.2525
• KPMG Brasil. (2022). Indústria 4.0 no Brasil: Cenários e Perspectivas https://materiais.kpmgbrasil.com.br/industria-4-0-no-brasil-todos-os-capitulos?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsZvQ96rIggMVG1hIAB26DQwNEAAYASAAEgIVmvD_BwE
  » https://materiais.kpmgbrasil.com.br/industria-4-0-no-brasil-todos-os-capitulos?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsZvQ96rIggMVG1hIAB26DQwNEAAYASAAEgIVmvD_BwE
• Kelly, R. (2018). Constructing leadership 4.0: Swarm leadership and the fourth industrial revolution. Springer.
• Khaw, T. Y., Teoh, A. P., Abdul Khalid, S. N., & Letchmunan, S. (2022). The impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance: A systematic lite-rature review. Journal of Management Development, 41(9/10), 514-534. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2022-0070
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2022-0070
• Kwiotkowska, A., Gajdzik, B., Wolniak, R., Vveinhardt, J., & Gębczyńska, M. (2021). Leadership competencies in making Industry 4.0 effective: The case of Polish heat and power industry. Energies, 14(14), 1-22. http://doi.org/10.3390/en14144338
  » http://doi.org/10.3390/en14144338
• Magaldi, S., & Neto, J. S. (2018). Gestão do Amanhã: Tudo o que você precisa saber sobre gestão, inovação e liderança para vencer na 4a Revolução Industrial Editora Gente Liv e Edit Ltd.
• Mdluli, S., & Makhupe, O. (2017). Defining leadership competencies needed for the fourth industrial revolution: Leadership competencies 4.0. Africa Expansion Project, Bank Seta South Africa.
• Morais, R., Cougo, J. S., de Brito, M. J., Brito, V. D. G. P., & Andrade, L. P. (2022). Produção científica sobre “lógicas institucionais”: Um estudo bibliométrico. Revista Reuna, 27(3), 85-108. https://reuna.emnuvens.com.br/reuna/article/view/1356
  » https://reuna.emnuvens.com.br/reuna/article/view/1356
• Oberer, B., & Erkollar, A. (2018). Leadership 4.0: Digital leaders in the age of Industry 4.0. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 7(4), 404-412. http://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2018.6033
  » http://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2018.6033
• Petry, T. (2018). Digital leadership. In K. North et al. (eds.), Knowledge management in digital change, progress in IS. Springer International Publishing AG.
• Promsri, C. (2019). Training program analysis for leadership 4.0 in the fourth industrial revolution. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 2(9), 591-595. http://doi.org/10.36349/easjebm.2019.v02i09.017
  » http://doi.org/10.36349/easjebm.2019.v02i09.017
• Puhovichova, D., & Jankelova, N. (2021). Leadership in conditions of Industry 4.0. SHS Web of Conferences, 1-10. http://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202111503013
  » http://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202111503013
• Riminucci, M. (2018). Industry 4.0 and human resources development: A view from Japan. E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies
• Sant’Anna, A. S., Diniz, D. M., Carvalho Neto, A. M., Santos, C. M. M., & Lima-Souza, E. (2022). Mulheres profissionais na transição para a Quarta Revolução Industrial: Um olhar brasileiro. Revista de Carreiras e Pessoas, 12(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.23925/recape.v12i1.49766
  » https://doi.org/10.23925/recape.v12i1.49766
• Sant’Anna, A. D. S., Campos, M. S., & Lotfi, S. (2012). Liderança: O que pensam executivos brasileiros sobre o tema?. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 13, 48-76.
• Sartori, G., Zanotto, M. P., & Fachinelli, A. C. (2018). Liderança em tempos de Indústria 4.0: Novos papéis para um novo perfil? In XVIII Mostra de Iniciação Científica, Pós-graduação, Pesquisa e Extensão.
• Schwab, K. (2016). A Quarta Revolução Industrial São Paulo: Edipro.
• Suyanto, U. Y., Mu’ah, M., Purwanti, I., & Sayyid, M. (2019). Transformational leadership: Millennial leadership style in Industry 4.0. Manajemen Bisnis, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.22219/jmb.v9i1.9437
  » https://doi.org/10.22219/jmb.v9i1.9437
• Tigre, F. B., Curado, C., & Henriques, P. L. (2023). Digital leadership: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 30(1), 40-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221123132
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221123132
• Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adapta-bility: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009
• Zizic, M. C., Mladineo, M., Gjeldum, N., & Celent, L. (2022). From Industry 4.0 towards Industry 5.0: A review and analysis of paradigm shift for the people, organization and technology. Energies, 15(14), 5221. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145221
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145221

Edited by

• EDITORIAL BOARD
  Editor-in-chief
  Fellipe Silva Martins
  Associated editor
  Amalia Raquel Pérez-Nebra
  Technical support
  Vitória Batista Santos Silva

• EDITORIAL PRODUCTION
  Publishing coordination
  Jéssica Dametta and Andreia Cominetti
  Editorial intern
  Bruna Silva de Angelis
  Copy editor
  Irina Migliari (Bardo Editorial)
  Layout designer
  Emap
  Graphic designer
  Libro

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  02 Dec 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  29 Aug 2023
• Accepted
  08 Mar 2024