Decoding employee digital performance: An in-depth literature analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/gbmr2024.16.1.4Keywords:
Digital transformation, Digitalization, Employee digital performance, Adaptive enterprise architectureAbstract
Digitalization has permeated into personal life and organizational operations, capturing significant interest from various organizations. They are uncertain about how to measure the impact of factors and metrics in the digital transformation process on Employee Digital Performance (EDP). This uncertainty poses challenges for decision-makers in assessing the feasibility of digitization and predicting employee performance outcomes. This study, employing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), conducted a comprehensive evaluation of 32 articles, providing influencing factors, performance indicators, metrics, and scales to fill this crucial research gap. The paper reviews the results based on the theoretical vantage points of the Results and Determinants (RD) and "Adaptive Enterprise Architecture" frameworks (EA). The research results indicate that, firstly, in terms of factors influencing employee performance, leadership types, HRM, and digital technology as independent variables significantly impact employee performance, with numerous studies highlighting the crucial role of digital technology. Furthermore, employee attitude and behavior variables, as important mediating variables, exist between organizational support factors and employee performance. Secondly, in the PI style assessment domain, the evaluation of Employee Performance emphasizes flexibility, job quality, and innovation capabilities, particularly highlighting the utilization of resources (i.e., improving job performance with digital resources). However, there is a research gap in the study of competitiveness and finance. Additionally, this study compares the differences in measurement between organizational digital performance and EDP. The research findings lay a solid foundation for further exploration of "digital design" and performance outcomes and provide direction for future studies.
Downloads
References
Ali-Hassan, H., Nevo, D., & Wade, M. (2015). Linking dimensions of social media use to job performance: The role of social capital. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(2), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.03.001
Alsufyani, N., & Gill, A. Q. (2022). Digitalisation performance assessment: A systematic review. Technology in Society, 68, 101894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101894
Anwar, M. J., & Gill, A. Q. (2019). A Review of the Seven Modelling Approaches for Digital Ecosystem Architecture. 2019 IEEE 21st Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1109/CBI.2019.00018 Arashpour, M., Golafshani, E. M., Parthiban, R., Lamborn, J., Kashani, A., Li, H., & Farzanehfar, P. (2023). Predicting individual learning performance using machine‐learning hybridized with the teaching‐learning‐based optimization. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 31(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22572
Benitez, J., Arenas, A., Castillo, A., & Esteves, J. (2022). Impact of digital leadership capability on innovation performance: The role of platform digitization capability. Information & Management, 59(2), 103590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103590
Brignall, S., & Ballantine, J. (1996). Performance measurement in service businesses revisited. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(1), 6–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564239610109393 Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker,
K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
Carayannis, E. G. (2022). The Futures of Europe: Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 as Driving Forces of Future Universities. Journal of the Knowledge Economy.
Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2013). A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), p18. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18 Costa Melo, Dr. I., Queiroz, G. A., Alves Junior, P. N., Sousa, T. B. D., Yushimito, W. F., & Pereira,
J. (2023). Sustainable digital transformation in small and medium enterprises (SMEs): A review on performance. Heliyon, 9(3), e13908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13908 Global Business Management Review: Vol. 16 Number 1 June 2024
Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9–10), 833–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF Franco‐Santos, M., Kennerley, M., Micheli, P., Martinez, V., Mason, S., Marr, B., Gray, D., & Neely,
A. (2007). Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(8), 784–801. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710763778
Ghosh, K., Dohan, M. S., Veldandi, H., & Garfield, M. (2023). Digital Transformation in Healthcare: Insights on Value Creation. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 63(2), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2022.2070798
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Guzmán-Ortiz, C. V., Navarro-Acosta, N. G., Florez-Garcia, W., & Vicente-Ramos, W. (2020). Impact of digital transformation on the individual job performance of insurance companies in Peru. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 337–346. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2020.9.005
Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159–1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639
Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Heubeck, T. (2023). Managerial capabilities as facilitators of digital transformation? Dynamic managerial capabilities as antecedents to digital business model transformation and firm performance. Digital Business, 3(1), 100053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2023.100053
Josey, A. (n.d.). TOGAF® Version 9.1 – A Pocket Guide.
Keller, A., Konlechner, S., Güttel, W. H., & Reischauer, G. (2022). Overcoming path-dependent dynamic capabilities. Strategic Organization, 147612702211258. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270221125807
Kuegler, M., Smolnik, S., & Kane, G. (2015). What’s in IT for employees? Understanding the relationship between use and performance in enterprise social software. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(2), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.04.001
Park, Y., & Saraf, N. (n.d.). Investigating the Complexity of Organizational Digitization and Firm Performance: A Set-Theoretic Configurational Approach.
Philipp, M. (n.d.). DIGITAL WORKPLACE TRANSFORMATION: THE IM-PORTANCE OF DEINSTITUTIONALISING THE TAKEN FOR GRANTED. Ramezani, M., Tayefi, B., Zandian, E., SoleimanvandiAzar, N., Khalili, N., Hoveidamanesh, S.,
Massahikhaleghi, P., & Rampisheh, Z. (2022). Workplace interventions for increasing physical activity in employees: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Health, 64(1), e12358. https://doi.org/10.1002/1348-9585.12358 Global Business Management Review: Vol. 16 Number 1 June 2024
Ren, X., & Sun, X. (2023). How do enterprise social media affordances affect knowledge sharing within project teams: The social cognitive theory view. Information Technology & People. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2022-0990
Ritala, P., Baiyere, A., Hughes, M., & Kraus, S. (2021). Digital strategy implementation: The role of individual entrepreneurial orientation and relational capital. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 171, 120961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120961
Rowe, F. (2018). Being critical is good, but better with philosophy! From digital transformation and values to the future of IS research. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(3), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1471789
Sandberg, J., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K. (n.d.). DIGITIZATION AND PHASE TRANSITIONS IN PLATFORM ORGANIZING LOGICS: EVIDENCE FROM THE PROCESS AUTOMATION INDUSTRY. Phase Transitions.
Shajek, A., & Hartmann, E. A. (Eds.). (2023). New digital work: Digital sovereignty at the workplace. Springer.
Shao, Z., Li, X., Luo, Y., & Benitez, J. (2022). The differential impacts of top management support and transformational supervisory leadership on employees’ digital performance. European Journal of Information Systems, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2022.2147456
Shostak, L. (2023). The Impact of Digital Transformation on the Economy: Technological Innovation and Efficiency. Economic Affairs, 68(4). https://doi.org/10.46852/0424-2513.4.2023.19
The-zachman-framework-enterprise-architecture-original-paper-1987.pdf. (n.d.).
Turyadi, I., Tawil, M. R., Ali, H., & Sadikin, A. (2023). THE ROLE OF DIGITAL LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS TO IMPROVE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE AND BUSINESS SUCCESS. 12(02).
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022
Zhang, X., Xu, Y., & Ma, L. (2022). Understanding the relationship between enterprise social media user adaptation, post-adoption use and employee performance. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2162437 Global Business Management Review: Vol. 16 Number 1 June 2024 9.0 APPENDIX On the Web of Science database, a refined search using advanced logic: TS= ("digital? ation" OR "digi*") AND employee performance AND ("impact" OR "effect") within the period of 2016-2023 yielded a total of 507 articles. For Scopus, an initial search using keywords (Digital? AND action OR digi*) AND employee AND performance AND (impact OR effect) resulted in 585 articles. After narrowing the criteria to the English language, focusing on business management, social sciences, environmental science, economics, and finance, and psychology, it narrowed to 279 articles. Finally, with a period restriction of 2016-2023, the search concluded with 266 articles. Table 9.1: Literature Search Method Database Scopus Web science Keywords No (Digital? AND ation OR digi* ) AND employee AND performance AND 266 ( impact OR effect ) AND PUBYEAR > 2015 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, "BUSI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, "SOCI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, "ECON" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, "DECI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, "PSYC" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, "ENVI" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE, "ar" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE, "cp" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE, "re" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE, "English" ) ) of TS= (("digital? ation" OR "digi*") AND employee performance AND 507 ("impact"OR "effect"))
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Global Business Management Review (GBMR)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Disclaimer
Global Business Management Review (GBMR) has taken all reasonable measures to ensure that material contained in this website is the original work of the author(s). However, the Journal gives no warranty and accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of the material; no reliance should be made by any user on the material. The user should check with the authors for confirmation.
Articles published in the Global Business Management Review (GBMR) do not represent the views held by the editors and members of the editorial board. Authors are responsible for all aspects of their articles except the editorial screen design.
Submission of an article is done with the understanding that the article has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, or thesis) that it is not under consideration for publication somewhere else; that if and when the article is accepted for publication, the author's consent to automatic transfer of the copyright to the publisher.
