Digital Leadership from the Perspective of Dynamic Capabilities: The Effect on Sustainable Performance and Resilience through Agility

Digital Leadership from the Perspective of Dynamic Capabilities: The Effect on Sustainable Performance and Resilience through Agility | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Digital Leadership from the Perspective of Dynamic Capabilities: The Effect on Sustainable Performance and Resilience through Agility Uzunbacak Hasan Hüseyin, Karagöz Şerife This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8045805/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose – This study aims to examine the impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance and organizational resilience, focusing on the mediating role of organizational agility. Based on the Dynamic Capabilities Theory, it explores how digitally competent leaders develop and leverage organizational capabilities to foster strategic adaptability and long-term success. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 312 public- and private-sector employees in Turkey using structured survey instruments. SPSS and AMOS were used to analyze the data. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and bootstrapping were applied to test direct and indirect effects, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed validity and reliability. Findings – The findings reveal that digital leadership has a positive and significant impact on organizational agility, resilience, and sustainable performance. Furthermore, organizational agility significantly mediates the effects of digital leadership on both sustainable performance and organizational resilience. The results confirm the central assumptions of the Dynamic Capabilities framework by demonstrating that digital leadership enhances the organization’s ability to reconfigure internal processes in response to environmental changes. Originality/value – This study is among the first to empirically examine the mediating role of organizational agility in the digital leadership–resilience–sustainability nexus. It enriches the literature by providing robust evidence that digital leadership, operating through agility as a dynamic capability, enhances long-term organizational competitiveness in dynamic and uncertain environments. Digital leadership Organizational agility Sustainable performance Organizational resilience Dynamic Capabilities Theory Figures Figure 1 Introduction Digital disruption has changed organizations in an unprecedented way (Tigre et al., 2023 ). In an era characterized by rapidly evolving technological advancements and shifting stakeholder expectations, organizations need not only management skills but also leaders who can keep up with digital developments in order to survive. Leaders' ability to understand and guide the digital world has a decisive impact on organizational success (Erhan et al., 2022 ). Digital leadership, derived from Hambrick and Mason’s ( 1984 ) Upper Echelons Theory, suggests that organizational outcomes result from leaders’ cognitive assessments. It refers to the integration of leadership skills and digital competencies to maximize the opportunities offered by digital technologies (Wasono and Furinto, 2018 ). This integration enables strategic managers to effectively manage digital transformation processes, make technology-focused decisions, and improve business performance. The Upper Echelons Theory emphasizes that leaders should use their digital competencies to support organizational change and innovation (Finkelstein et al., 2009 ). Leaders with digital competencies encourage innovative approaches among employees, thereby increasing both motivation and performance (Erhan et al., 2022 ). It is believed that leaders need to possess agility and adaptability in their decision-making resources to make the most of the changing environment and maximize organizational performance (Hossain et al., 2025 ). Digital leadership is a strategic approach that promotes innovation and collaboration, increasing organizational efficiency and productivity through effective use of technology (Turyadi, 2023). It also strengthens decision-making processes and contributes significantly to organizational goals. Organizational agility, a dynamic capability, refers to the ability to quickly adapt to changing environmental conditions and deliver innovative, customer-focused solutions (Holbeche, 2023 ). Organizational resilience, on the other hand, is an organization’s ability to reorganize resources, optimize processes, and align relationships to quickly overcome crises, turning challenges into growth opportunities (Chen et al., 2021 ). Through digital transformation, organizations can not only respond quickly to crises but also improve their sustainable performance while fulfilling environmental responsibilities (Shin et al., 2023 ). Although Lathabhavan and Kuppusamy ( 2024 ) show that digital leadership can improve performance through resilience, more studies are needed to explore how digital leadership can achieve sustainability goals (Shin et al., 2023 ). In particular, the mechanisms through which digital leadership influences sustainable performance and resilience remain underexplored. This study aims to examine how digital leadership and organizational agility together impact sustainable performance and organizational resilience, addressing the identified gap in the literature. Furthermore, using organizational agility as a mediating variable will reveal the underlying mechanisms linking digital leadership with sustainable performance and organizational resilience. By doing so, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of how digital leadership, operating through agility as a dynamic capability, can enhance long-term organizational competitiveness, particularly in volatile and rapidly changing environments. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Dynamic Capabilities Theory In order to adapt to constantly changing environmental conditions, organizations need to effectively manage the processes of integrating, directing, and restructuring their resources and competencies. Dynamic Capabilities Theory posits that in environments characterized by high environmental variability, organizations must not only utilize their existing resources but also gain strategic flexibility through fundamental processes such as environmental change, innovation and learning, integration, and reconfiguration, thereby achieving sustainable competitive advantage (Teece et al., 1997 ). Within this framework, dynamic capabilities focus on how organizations sense opportunities in their environment, how they evaluate these opportunities, and how they transform their organizational structure to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. The core components of the theory include the competencies of environmental sensitivity (sensing), seizing opportunities, and transforming resource structures (Khan et al., 2024 ). These competencies are developed more effectively through the strategic vision and technology-focused decision-making processes guided by digital leadership, thereby enabling organizations to remain agile and adaptable in the face of digitalization (Warner & Wäger, 2019 ). Dynamic competencies also nurture organizational agility, accelerating strategic decision-making processes in uncertain and rapidly changing market conditions (Teece et al., 2016 ). This ensures that sustainable performance is based not only on financial indicators but also on long-term value creation integrated with environmental and social responsibility (Harun et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, dynamic competencies enable organizations to respond flexibly during crises and develop institutional resilience in the face of changing conditions; in this respect, they are key determinants of organizational resilience (Lengnick-Hall, Beck & Lengnick-Hall, 2011 ). O'Reilly and Tushman (2008) state that the success of organizations is largely dependent on their ability to adapt to the environment and use existing resources effectively. Dynamic capabilities are considered fundamental processes that support organizations' strategic restructuring and enable them to achieve sustainable competitive advantage and superior performance in constantly changing market conditions (Bleady et al., 2018 : 1). In this study, it is observed that digital leadership drives technological transformation, develops dynamic capabilities, and facilitates adaptation to market conditions. It is predicted that leaders increase agility by effectively integrating and structuring resources, and that agility strengthens both sustainable performance and organizational resilience (Öztırak & Bayram, 2023; Holbeche, 2023 ; Azhar & Javed, 2024 ). In this context, it is thought that organizational resilience can support long-term success by increasing the capacity for rapid recovery from crises and unexpected changes. Therefore, when viewed from the perspective of dynamic capabilities, digital leadership, organizational agility, and organizational resilience are considered decisive factors in organizations' processes of maintaining competitive advantage and adapting to changing environmental conditions. Digital Leadership and Organizational Agility In the digital era, a business’s ability to maintain a competitive edge and adapt to environmental changes depends on organizational agility and digital leadership (Erer et al., 2023 ). Leadership is fundamental to promoting agility, and the leadership style adopted in an organization significantly influences the development of organizational agility (Ramadan et al., 2023 ). According to the Dynamic Capabilities Theory, businesses must effectively structure their resources to adapt to changing environmental conditions and maintain their competitive advantage (Teece et al., 1997 ). Digital leaders make strategic decisions by sensing environmental changes and accelerate organizational learning through innovative technologies. Thus, opportunities can be evaluated and strategies can be restructured (Motwani and Katatria, 2024 ). Some studies in the literature address the relationship between digital leadership and organizational agility (Karafakioğlu & Fındıklı, 2024; Öztırak & Bayram, 2023). Considering the findings and theoretical approach, the following hypothesis has been developed: H 1 Digital leadership has a positive and significant effect on organizational agility. Digital Leadership and Organizational Resilience In the age of digital transformation, leaders’ roles extend beyond setting strategy to enabling businesses to build resilience in the face of uncertainty. Leaders who influence the achievement of societal and business goals support continuity and growth by adapting to changing conditions (Artüz et al., 2021: 101). Leaders are considered an influential factor in shaping interactions with employees (Chien, 2025). In this context, the concept of digital leadership stands out for its ability to guide digital transformation and effectively utilize technological innovations. Digital leadership enables businesses to gain a competitive advantage in constantly changing business environments while also contributing to the development of organizational resilience (Ruiz-Martin et al., 2022). Organizational resilience is the capacity of businesses to survive and thrive during crises, economic fluctuations, and technological changes. According to the Dynamic Capabilities Theory, businesses' sustainable competitive advantage depends on their capacity to perceive environmental changes and evaluate opportunities (Teece et al., 1997 ). Digital leaders enhance organizations’ adaptability by making decision-making processes more flexible and increasing resilience during crises. Digital competencies and technological innovations enhance businesses' adaptation capacity and resilience (Robertson et al., 2022 ). Considering the theoretical approach, the following hypothesis has been developed: H 2 Digital leadership has a positive and significant effect on organizational resilience. Digital Leadership and Sustainable Performance Organizations need to have dynamic capabilities in order to effectively perceive and evaluate external opportunities. Dynamic capabilities are considered an important source of competitive advantage (Teece et al., 1997 ). Dynamic capabilities, need to be continuously renewed in order to respond to environmental changes; organizations, on the other hand, must develop their capacities to sustain high levels of performance (Loureiro et al., 2023 ). The ability of organizations to sustain their competitive advantage depends on their level of digital transformation adoption. Digital leadership encompasses leadership approaches related to digital technologies and transformation processes, and influences organizational performance through innovative work behavior (Erhan et al., 2022 ; Tian et al., 2023). The Dynamic Capabilities Theory considers the abilities to perceive, evaluate opportunities, and restructure as necessary for adaptation (Teece, 2007 ). Additionally, by supporting employees’ creative skills, innovation capabilities, and development of dynamic competencies, digital leadership has a decisive impact on both long-term individual performance and organizational sustainable performance (Sarfraz et al., 2022 : 1; Khaw et al., 2022 ). Some studies in the literature address the relationship between digital leadership and sustainable performance (Falcke et al., 2024 ; Alabdali et al., 2024 ). Considering the findings and theoretical approach, the following hypothesis has been developed: H 3 Digital leadership has a positive and significant effect on sustainable performance. Organizational Agility and Organizational Resilience Organizational agility has a fundamental impact on increasing organizational resilience by enabling proactive responses to emerging risks and disruptions (Mandal and Dubey, 2021 ). According to Dynamic Capabilities Theory, an organization’s agility directly relates to its ability to quickly adapt to environmental changes and effectively reorganize existing resources (Teece et al., 1997 ). This theory is an important element of strategic management in the processes of learning, innovating, and gaining flexibility. Agile organizations strengthen their resilience by quickly identifying opportunities, making decisions, and taking action (Holbeche, 2023 ). Some studies in the literature address the relationship between organizational agility and organizational resilience (Alnasser et al., 2024 ). Considering the findings and theoretical approach, the following hypothesis has been developed: H 4 Organizational agility has a positive and significant effect on organizational resilience. Organizational Agility and Sustainable Performance Organizational agility is a dynamic competency that can be learned and continuously accessed when necessary to increase business performance in a volatile market environment (Walter, 2021 ). Agile organizations can respond quickly to the market by leveraging collaboration and external stakeholder support, thereby improving performance and managing processes efficiently. Access to current technologies also improves employees’ technological skills and overall performance (Rafi et al., 2021). According to the Dynamic Capabilities Theory, agile organizations adapt to environmental changes and develop their capabilities by continuously restructuring their resources (Teece et al., 1997 ). Organizational agility supports businesses in gaining a competitive advantage and sustainable performance by enabling them to respond quickly to environmental opportunities using their dynamic capabilities. Some studies in the literature address the relationship between organizational agility and sustainable performance (Javed et al., 2023 ; Khan, 2023 ; Khalaf, 2024 ). Considering the findings and theoretical approach, the following hypothesis was developed: H 5 Organizational agility has a positive and significant effect on sustainable performance. Organizational Agility as a Mediator The relationship between digital leadership, organizational resilience, and sustainable performance is strengthened when organizational agility is included as a mediating variable. Organizational agility is defined as the ability to adapt quickly to changing conditions and plays an important role in the context of the Resource-Based View and Dynamic Capabilities Theory. The Resource-Based View aims to understand how organizations achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Keskin et al., 2016 ). The theory provides a robust framework for organizations to gain a competitive advantage in a dynamic digital environment by leveraging digital resources. Principles in the digital domain enable organizations to develop successful strategies and emphasize the importance of digital platforms, technological capabilities, agility, and strategic partnerships (Willie, 2025 ). Over time, resources and advantages can reverse in value, so recent research has examined theories focusing on resource change and adaptation (Keskin et al., 2016 ). Combined, the resource-based view and dynamic capabilities theory suggest that organizations must not only possess valuable resources but also manage and adapt them to a changing environment (Teece et al., 1997 ). While the Resource-Based View emphasizes the value of an organization's existing resources, the Dynamic Capabilities Theory focuses on how these resources should be adapted to changing conditions (Teece, 2007 ). Agile organizations demonstrate the ability to mobilize resources, implement innovative solutions, and adapt their structures by perceiving threats and opportunities (Holbeche, 2023 ). Digital leaders, on the other hand, reinforce competitive advantage through structures that support diversity, strengthen competencies, and create learning environments (Firmansyah et al., 2024 ). It is assumed that the functions of digital leadership, such as encouraging innovation in organizations, strengthening employee competencies, and supporting continuous learning environments, will contribute to organizational agility and strengthen organizational resilience. In this context, the following hypothesis is proposed: H 6 Organizational agility has a mediating effect on the impact of digital leadership on organizational resilience. Digitalization is a process in which organizations reshape their strategic priorities in order to remain competitive. In this process, digital leadership plays a critical role not only in the management of technological infrastructure, but also in transforming organizations' innovation capacity, agility level, and data-driven decision-making mechanisms (Ismail et al., 2023 ). Digital leaders aim to build agile structures that can adapt to dynamic environmental conditions while turning technology into a strategic advantage. This goal is consistent with the dynamic capabilities theory (Teece, 2007 ): Digital leadership supports sustainable performance by nurturing organizations' “sensing”, “seizing”, and “transforming” capabilities to support sustainable performance. However, it can be argued that organizational agility must function as an intermediary mechanism for this effect to occur. Jasim et al. (2024) empirically confirmed the positive effects of digital leadership on creative performance, agility, and organizational learning. However, the direct impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance is limited by the organization's agility capacity. This is because agility enables the technological capabilities provided by digital transformation to be converted into operational flexibility and innovative applications (Doz & Kosonen, 2008 ). Research has shown that organizations with high levels of agility derive greater returns from their digital investments than organizations with low levels of agility. For example, Çallı & Çallı ( 2021 ) found that the level of digitalization has a performance-enhancing effect in organizations with high levels of digitalization. This finding can be interpreted as a clue that the influence of leaders managing organizations with high levels of digitalization may also have an impact on performance. This finding shows that the impact of digital leadership cannot be fully realized without agility (Warner & Wäger, 2019 ). From a resource-based view (Barney, 1991) perspective, digital leaders turn technology into a rare and inimitable resource. However, for this resource to become a sustainable advantage, it must be supported by the organization's agility capacity. Agile organizations can quickly implement digital leaders' strategic decisions, adapt flexibly to technological changes, and respond instantly to customer demands. In a study by Mollah et al. ( 2024 ), organizations with high digital leadership but low agility experienced a decline in competitive performance levels, while organizations with high agility rapidly restructured their resources to increase their competitive performance levels. This situation proves that agility acts as a critical bridge between digital leadership and sustainable performance. In light of these theoretical and empirical findings, it can be argued that the effect of digital leadership on sustainable performance is mediated by organizational agility. H 7 Organizational agility has a mediating effect on the impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance. Research Methodology This section describes the research purpose, model, population, sampling method, data collection tools, and analysis procedures. This research aims to examine the effects of digital leadership on sustainable performance and organizational resilience and to determine the role of organizational agility as a mediating variable in these effects. The estimated model of the research is shown in Fig. 1 . Participants This study includes public- and private-sector employees, and used convenience sampling to collect the data. The sample consisted of 68.6% women and 31.4% men. In total, 54.5% of participants were married and 45.5% were single. The average age of participants was 36.9 years (SD = 8.48). Participants worked in various sectors: 20.8% in service, 13.5% in health care, 54.2% in education, 3.2% in manufacturing, 2.6% in retail, and 5.8% in other sectors. In terms of education, 1.6% had a high school diploma, 4.2% an associate degree, 27.6% a bachelor’s degree, and 66.7% a graduate degree. The distribution of participants according to demographic characteristics is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Demographic Characteristics Measures Data were collected using an online survey. Participants received survey links via Google Forms. The first page explained the purpose of the study, assured participants of anonymity, and informed them that they could stop responding at any time. Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from Çankaya University (Ethics Committee No. 46, dated 27 June 2024). The survey was distributed via online channels (e.g., WhatsApp, Instagram, Telegram). Data were collected in January–February 2025. Of 354 returned surveys, 42 were discarded due to incomplete or incorrect responses, leaving 312 valid surveys for analysis. Anderson and Gerbing ( 1984 ) posit that a minimum sample size of 150 is necessary to ensure robust parameter estimation in structural equation modeling (SEM). Furthermore, Tabachnick and Fidell ( 2013 , p. 482) suggest that variables demonstrating skewness and kurtosis values within the range of ± 1.5 can be considered approximately normally distributed. In the present study, all observed values for skewness and kurtosis fell within these thresholds, thereby satisfying the assumption of normality. Moreover, the sample size (N = 312) exceeds the recommended minimum for SEM, further supporting the robustness of the analytical approach. In this study, the skewness and kurtosis values fall within the specified range (Table 3). In this context, it is concluded that the sample meets the normal distribution condition (at a 95% confidence level) and that the sample size is adequate. Scales measuring digital leadership, organizational agility, organizational resilience, and sustainable performance were used. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree). A demographic questionnaire collected participants’ gender, marital status, age group, education level and sector of employment at their current institution. Below are details regarding the psychometric properties of the scales: Digital Leadership Developed by Zeike et al. ( 2019 ) and adapted into Turkish by Sürücü et al. ( 2022 ), the scale consists of six statements and a single dimension. The Cronbach Alpha value of the scale is .90. There are no reverse statements in the scale. An example item from the scale is “I can say that my manager is an expert in digital matters.” Organizational Agility Developed by Sharifi and Zhang ( 1999 ) and adapted into Turkish by Akkaya and Tabak ( 2018 ), the scale consists of four dimensions (8 statements on competence, 3 statements on flexibility, 3 statements on responsiveness, and 3 statements on speed), totaling 17 statements. The Cronbach Alpha value of the scale was found to be .92, and the results obtained based on the dimensions were as follows: .84 for the competence dimension, .81 for the flexibility dimension, .74 for the responsiveness dimension, and .85 for the speed dimension. There are no reverse statements in the scale. An example item from the scale is the statement, “The organization I work for has a strategic vision that will achieve its long-term goals.” Organizational Resilience The Resilience Capacity Scale developed by Richtner and Löfsten ( 2014 :139) was used. The scale consists of a total of 21 different statements. The Turkish adaptation and translation of the scale was carried out by the researcher based on Türe and Başar ( 2022 ). The Cronbach Alpha value is .92. An example item from the scale is the statement, “It succeeds in acting as a whole with all its employees.” Employee Sustainable Performance The scale developed by Ji et al. ( 2021 ) and adapted into Turkish by Çilhoroz et al. ( 2023 ) was used. The scale consists of 10 statements and a single dimension, with a Cronbach Alpha value of .90. There are no reverse statements in the scale. An example item from the scale is the statement “Throughout my entire career, I will always be suitable for my job.” Data Analysis The data obtained in this study were analyzed using various statistical methods. First, descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations), normality tests, reliability analyses, and Pearson correlations were performed using SPSS 22.0. We measured internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (range: − 1 to 1) was used to examine the direction and strength of linear relationships (Field, 2013 ). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using AMOS 24.0 to test the research model. Construct validity was assessed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and fit indices (χ²/df, CFI, TLI, etc.) were examined to evaluate model fit (Byrne, 2016 ). We then used SEM path analysis to examine the hypothesized relationships. Indirect (mediating) effects were tested via bootstrap analysis (5,000 samples, 95% CI) (Preacher & Hayes, 2008 ). Maximum likelihood estimation was used in SEM. Validity and Reliability Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the construct validity of the scales used in the study. CFA is a statistical technique used to test the suitability of a measurement tool's factor structure to a theoretical framework. This analysis determines how factors are related to observed variables and has a decisive effect on evaluating the structural validity of the measurement tool. CFA reveals the validity of the tool by analyzing factor loadings, goodness-of-fit indices, and inter-factor relationships, and ensures that the validation process is carried out in detail (Hair et al., 2010 ). Convergent and discriminant validity analyses were conducted to assess construct validity, and scale reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. We will present descriptive statistics and correlations for digital leadership, organizational agility, organizational resilience, and sustainable performance variables, followed by structural equation modeling results, including the mediating role of organizational agility. Table 2. Factor Loadings, Validity, and Reliability Convergent validity was assessed using average explained variance (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) values. Discriminant validity was analyzed by calculating the square root of the AVE value. According to Fornell and Larcker ( 1981 ), the AVE value should be above .50 and the CR value should be above .70 for composite validity. In terms of discriminant validity, it was emphasized that the square root of the AVE value should be higher than the correlation coefficients with other structures. According to the data presented in Table 2, the results of the three tests are within the acceptable limits. Additionally, Table 4 shows that the the square root of the AVE values are higher than the correlation coefficients between the factors. This indicates that the scales have discriminant validity. In this study, Harman's Single Factor Test was applied to assess whether there was a problem related to common method variance (CMV). The analysis revealed that the single-factor structure explained 38.8% of the total variance. Podsakoff et al. (2003) state that a ratio below 50% indicates that there is no common method variance problem. Accordingly, the fact that the ratio is below 50% indicates that there is no common method variance problem in the present study. Within the scope of the study, the internal consistency coefficients of the measurement tools with established construct validity were calculated. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient. In the literature, a Cronbach's Alpha value above .70 indicates that the measurement tool has sufficient internal consistency and is therefore reliable (Field, 2013 ). The Cronbach’s Alpha value of the digital leadership scale included in the study was calculated as .95, the organizational agility scale as .94, the organizational resilience scale as .94, and the sustainable performance scale as .91. These findings reveal that the Cronbach’s Alpha values of all scales are above the acceptable threshold value specified in the literature and thus support the reliability of the measurement tools in question. Table 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices In the first-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) process, the model fit values of all scales included in the study were evaluated together with the adjustments made to reach the threshold values specified in the literature. In the organizational resilience, digital leadership, and sustainable performance scales, no items were deleted; only covariances were added between the suggested error variances, and the analysis results showed that the structural validity of all three scales was ensured and that the fit indices were within acceptable limits (Table 3) (Kline, 2019 : 219). In the DFA process related to the organizational agility scale, it was determined in the first-order that some fit indices were below the threshold values in the literature. This is because Harrington (2009) states that the factor loading value should be .30 or above. In this context, the item with the statement “The organization I work for senses and perceives the direction of change within the scope of environmental change and is prepared for these changes,” which had a factor loading below the specified threshold, was removed from the model. It was determined that the factor loadings of the remaining 16 items were statistically significant (p < .001), and the analyses were re-conducted accordingly. As a result, it was determined that the structural validity of all scales was ensured and that the fit indices were within acceptable limits (Kline, 2019 : 219). Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Table 4 presents statistical data showing the mean, standard deviation, and normality (skewness and kurtosis) coefficients of the variables. Table 4. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations The mean and standard deviation for digital leadership were 2.66 (SD = 1.01), indicating a slightly below-average perception. Organizational agility had a mean of 2.68 (SD = 0.75), close to average, while organizational resilience had a mean of 2.56 (SD = 0.75), below average. Sustainable performance had a mean of 2.03 (SD = 0.51), indicating a low level of perceived sustainable outcomes. Correlation analysis revealed positive, significant relationships between digital leadership and organizational agility (r = .718, p < .01), digital leadership and resilience (r = .708, p < .01), and digital leadership and sustainable performance (r = .141, p < .01). Organizational agility was strongly correlated with resilience (r = .727, p < .01) and moderately with sustainable performance (r = .250, p < .01). A weaker but significant positive correlation existed between resilience and sustainable performance (r = .234, p < .01). Overall, all relationships were positive and significant. The Results of the Hypothesis SEM analysis confirmed acceptable model fit (χ²/df = 1.638; GFI = .91; AGFI = .99; NFI = .97; TLI = .93; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .045). Table 5 shows that digital leadership positively predicts organizational resilience (β = .23, p < .001) and sustainable performance (β = .28, p < .001). Digital leadership also strongly predicts organizational agility (β = .72, p < .001), which in turn positively predicts both resilience (β = .66, p < .001) and sustainable performance (β = .30, p < .001). Table 5. Bootstrap Regresion Results In summary, H1 through H5 were supported. Organizational agility significantly mediated the effects of digital leadership on organizational resilience (H6) and on sustainable performance (H7). Digital leadership explained 23% of the variance in agility. Together, digital leadership and agility explained 74% of the variance in resilience and 72% of the variance in sustainable performance. These findings highlight organizational agility’s key mediating role in translating digital leadership into enhanced resilience and sustainable performance. Table 5 presents the values of the unstandardized (B) path coefficients. Table 6. Unstandardized Coefficients Conclusion and Discussion In the dynamically evolving business environment, digital leadership’s impact on sustainable performance and organizational resilience is increasingly important. Similarly, organizational agility strengthens an organization’s ability to adapt to change and achieve long-term success. This study examined the impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance and organizational resilience, and the mediating role of agility. Our findings indicate that digital leadership has a significant positive impact on organizational agility, suggesting that digital leadership supports agility in organizations. Digital leadership may enable organizations to become more open to change, eager to learn, and effective in leveraging technology. This finding aligns with prior studies on digital leadership and organizational agility (Karafakioğlu & Fındıklı, 2024; Öztıtrak & Bayram, 2023). In this framework, the similarities between the research findings and previous studies are striking. The second finding is that digital leadership positively and significantly impacts organizational resilience. This suggests that digital leadership enhances an organization’s ability to withstand crises, uncertainties, and sudden environmental changes. Digital leaders’ abilities to develop technology-based solutions, make rapid decisions, and foster knowledge-driven management can strengthen an organization’s capacity to cope with challenging conditions. This suggests that digital leadership is important not only for innovation and transformation but also for maintaining organizational continuity and stability. This result is consistent with prior research linking digital leadership and resilience (Lathabhavan & Kuppusamy, 2024 ). Third, digital leadership significantly enhances sustainable performance, indicating a high likelihood of improved sustainability outcomes. Digital leaders facilitate technological adoption, innovation, and agile adaptation to environmental changes, which likely improves sustainable performance. However, the strategic orientations provided by digital leadership are likely to make an important contribution to long-term success and sustainability. In this case, it is thought that sustainable performance can be increased if digital leadership is managed correctly. There are some studies in the literature that address the relationship between digital leadership and sustainable performance (Khaw et al., 2022 ; Sarfraz et al., 2022 ; Shin et al., 2023 ; Falcke et al., 2024 ; Alabdali et al., 2024 ; Azhar & Javed, 2024 ). These research findings are consistent with the results of previous studies. However, Yahya et al. ( 2024 ) found a positive but non-significant effect of digital leadership on sustainable performance, which contradicts our results. This discrepancy may arise from their limited sample of public-sector employees and the early stage of digital transformation in that context. Yahya et al. ( 2024 ) conducted their research on a limited sample of public employees working in local governments in Indonesia. In this context, digital leadership practices may not yet be sufficiently established or systematically implemented within organizations. In addition, the early stages of digital transformation processes may prevent digital leadership behaviors from directly reflecting on sustainable performance. This situation may have prevented the effect of digital leadership on sustainable performance from reaching a statistically significant level. Fourth, organizational agility significantly and positively affects resilience, indicating that agility increases an organization’s capacity to cope with challenges. Agile organizations strengthen resilience through their ability to adapt quickly to changing conditions. This aligns with Teece ( 2014 ), who notes that agility enables rapid strategic realignment during crises. In short, agile structures can increase an organization’s preparedness and resilience to sudden changes or crises. There are some studies in the literature that address the relationship between organizational agility and organizational resilience (Alnasser et al., 2024 ; Musa & Enggarsyah, 2025 ). The results of this study are consistent with similar studies in the literature. Fifth, organizational agility significantly and positively affects sustainable performance, indicating that agility contributes to sustainable success. Agile organizations improve long-term performance by quickly adapting to changes and innovating. This aligns with Teece ( 2007 ), who argues that efficient resource use and rapid strategic adaptation support sustained success. In this context, organizational agility can be considered an important factor in increasing sustainable performance. Some studies in the literature address the relationship between organizational agility and sustainable performance (Javed et al., 2023 ; Khan, 2023 ; Khalaf, 2024 ). Therefore, the results of this study are consistent with previous findings. Sixth, organizational agility mediates the relationship between digital leadership and resilience. In other words, digital leadership enhances resilience primarily by increasing agility in the organization. Digital leaders enable organizations to adapt quickly to change by leveraging innovation and technology (Ruiz-Martín et al., 2022 ). In this regard, agility amplifies the impact of digital leadership on resilience. Additionally, the Dynamic Capabilities Theory emphasizes the ability of organizations to quickly adapt to environmental changes and challenges. Teece ( 2007 ) states that dynamic capabilities are important for an organization to respond to changing market conditions and gain a competitive advantage. In this context, it can be argued that digital leadership, combined with organizational agility, can strengthen the capacity to increase organizational resilience. Thus, combining digital leadership with agility develops an organization’s dynamic capabilities and enhances its resilience to environmental changes. Finally, agility also mediates the digital leadership–sustainable performance relationship. This indicates that digital leadership boosts sustainable performance primarily by enhancing organizational agility. From a dynamic capabilities perspective (Teece et al., 1997 ), digital leadership increases an organization’s ability to adapt and innovate. Organizational agility enables effective use of these capabilities, thereby strengthening digital leadership’s impact on sustainable performance. In this context, it can be argued that the directions provided by digital leadership increase the likelihood of organizations achieving sustainable success through organizational agility. From a theoretical standpoint, this study extends the Dynamic Capabilities Theory by empirically validating organizational agility as a dual mediator between digital leadership and both organizational resilience and sustainable performance. This finding highlights agility not only as a dynamic capability but also as a critical mechanism through which digital leadership translates into long-term strategic outcomes. When evaluated within the context of Turkey, the findings suggest that certain cultural and structural factors may have influenced the results. The dominant hierarchical organizational structures, particularly in public institutions and some private sector organizations, may act as constraints on agility. Moreover, although the importance of digital transformation has increased, many leaders may lack sufficient awareness to fully embrace and implement this transformation at a strategic level, which may in turn limit the impact of digital leadership. Furthermore, the economic crises, political uncertainties, and global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic that Turkey has faced over the past decade have brought organizational resilience to the forefront as a critical necessity for survival. In this context, high levels of resilience are no longer a strategic choice but a mandatory requirement. Therefore, these cultural and environmental factors can be regarded as key dynamics that have shaped the study’s findings. Limitations of the Study This study has some limitations. First, the use of convenience sampling and voluntary participation limits the generalizability of the findings. In particular, the education sector is overrepresented (54.2% of the sample), which may bias the results given that educational institutions often differ from other industries in structure, digital maturity, and leadership practices. Caution is therefore advised when generalizing to sectors like manufacturing, retail, or healthcare. Second, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences. Third, using an online survey may introduce bias (e.g., social desirability). Additionally, external factors (sector dynamics, economic conditions, technological pace, organizational culture) were not controlled and may influence digital leadership, agility, performance, and resilience. Finally, this study measured digital leadership mainly in terms of technological competencies. For a more comprehensive understanding, future research should include human-centered aspects of leadership (e.g., emotional intelligence, empathy, social skills). Recommendations for Researchers Future scholarly inquiry should systematically examine the multifaceted influence of digital leadership on sustainable performance by interrogating its complex interplay with underlying organizational mechanisms, including cultural paradigms, intrinsic motivational frameworks, and psychosocial determinants of job satisfaction, while simultaneously addressing the critical yet underexplored dichotomy in its manifestations across hierarchical levels (employee versus managerial experiences) and institutional contexts (cross-sectoral and cross-cultural variations), thereby contributing to a more robust, globally-relevant theoretical framework. Methodologically, in-depth qualitative explorations could elucidate the dynamic, processual nature of digital leadership's symbiosis with organizational agility, revealing contextual contingencies and mediating pathways, whereas longitudinal designs would enable the temporal mapping of these constructs' co-evolution and their cumulative performance implications. Furthermore, research should investigate the synergistic potential of digital transformation architectures, competence development ecosystems, and adaptive leadership models as catalytic mechanisms for sustainability, while also probing the often-overlooked relational dimensions - particularly the tripartite nexus of social capital accumulation, knowledge flow optimization, and engagement dynamics - that may constitute the foundational substrate of organizational resilience, ultimately yielding a more sophisticated, multi-theoretical understanding of digital leadership's transformative capacity in contemporary organizational ecosystems. Recommendations for Practitioners Considering the role of digital leadership in increasing organizational agility and resilience, it is essential that leaders develop their competencies in this area. Based on the findings of this study, digital leadership significantly influences both agility and resilience, suggesting that leadership development programs should focus on enhancing digital competencies, strategic vision, and change management skills. Training programs can be designed to impart digital leadership skills, and the strategic use of digital technologies should be encouraged. Moreover, when selecting digital leaders, organizations should prioritize not only technical expertise but also strategic thinking, effective communication, and the ability to motivate employees through transformation. These qualities are critical for translating digital initiatives into sustainable organizational outcomes, especially in dynamic and uncertain environments. Taking into account the potential impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance, it is recommended that practitioners integrate sustainability goals within a holistic digital transformation strategy. The study revealed that sustainable performance perceptions were relatively low, indicating a need for more strategic alignment between digital initiatives and long-term value creation. Financial concerns may lead individuals and organizations to prioritize short-term needs, making it more difficult to focus on long-term goals such as sustainability. Economic uncertainty and resource constraints can push sustainability investments into the background. Therefore, the impact of financial concerns on sustainable performance should be carefully considered and addressed within strategic planning processes. In doing so, appropriate support mechanisms can be developed to facilitate the adoption of sustainability goals and ensure long-term organizational competitiveness. Given agility’s key role, organizations should establish flexible processes and agile decision-making mechanisms. Decision-making should be streamlined for rapid crisis response, and organizations should encourage quick adaptation to feedback. Investing in systems that support continuous learning and responsiveness is essential for leveraging agility as a strategic capability. Declarations Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all participants who contributed to the data collection process. Authors’ Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Funding This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Availability of data and materials The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study involved human participants. Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Çankaya University (Approval No: 46, dated 27 June 2024). All participants were informed about the purpose and scope of the research and provided written informed consent before participating in the interviews. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. References Akkaya B, Tabak A. Örgütsel çeviklik ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Adaptation to Turkish of organizational agility questionnaire: Reliability and validity study]. İş ve İnsan Dergisi. 2018;5(2):185–206. https://doi.org/10.18394/iid.439184 . Alabdali MA, Yaqub MZ, Agarwal R, Alofaysan H, Mohapatra AK. Unveiling green digital transformational leadership: Nexus between green digital culture, green digital mindset, and green digital transformation. J Clean Prod. 2024;450:141670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141670 . Alnasser EM, Alkhozaim SM, Alshiha AA, Al-Romeedy BS, Khairy HA. Intellectual capital and organisational resilience in tourism and hotel businesses: Do organisational agility and innovation matter? Curr Issues Tourism. 2024;1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2024.2378970 . Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1984;49(2):155–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294170 . Artüz SD, Bayraktar O. The effect of relation between digital leadership practice and learning organization on the perception of individual performance. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2021;20(40):97–120. https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.761479 . Azhar J, Javed T. The moderating role of digital innovation between digital leadership, learning, and sustainable performance among small and medium-sized firms. J Policy Res. 2024;10(3):337–46. https://doi.org/10.61506/02.00351 . Bleady A, Ali A, Ibrahim S. Dynamic capabilities theory: Pinning down a shifting concept. Acad Acc Financial Stud J. 2018;22(2):1–16. Byrne BM. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421 Chen R, Xie Y, Liu Y. Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring organizational resilience: A multiple case study. Sustainability. 2021;13(5):2517. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052517 . Chien CJ. Leader identification and disidentification: Constructs, measurements, and nomological network. J Leadersh Organizational Stud. 2024;32(1):12–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518241301235 . Çallı BA, Çallı L. Dijital olgunluk, örgütsel çeviklik ve firma performansı arasındaki ilişkiler: KOBİ’ler üzerine ampirik bir araştırma [Relationships between digital maturity, organizational agility, and firm performance: An empirical investigation on SMEs]. Bus Manage Studies: Int J. 2021;9(2):486–502. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v9i2.1786 . Çilhoroz Y, Topaktaş G, Işık O. Çalışanın sürdürülebilir performansı (ÇSP) ölçeği: Türkçe geçerlik-güvenirlik çalışması [Employee sustainable performance (ESP) scale: Turkish validity-reliability study]. Türk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi. 2023;80(1):89–100. https://doi.org/10.5505/TurkHijyen.2023.0024 . Doz Y, Kosonen M. The dynamics of strategic agility: Nokia's rollercoaster experience. Calif Manag Rev. 2008;50(3):95–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/4116644 . Erer B, Demirel E, Savaş Y. Dijital liderliğin görsel haritalama tekniğine göre bibliyometrik analizi [Bibliometric analysis of digital leadership according to visual mapping technique]. Uluslararası Liderlik Çalışmaları Dergisi: Kuram ve Uygulama. 2023;6(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.52848/ijls.1257255 . Erhan T, Uzunbacak HH, Aydin E. From conventional to digital leadership: Exploring digitalization of leadership and innovative work behavior. Manage Res Rev. 2022;45(12):1524–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2021-0338 . Falcke L, Zobel AK, Yoo Y, Tucci C. Digital sustainability strategies: Digitally enabled and digital-first innovation for net zero. Acad Manage Perspect. 2024. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2023.0169 . Advance online publication. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 4th ed. Sage; 2013. Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC, Cannella AA. Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press; 2009. Firmansyah F, Erda G, Khurniawan AW. The impact of digital transformation and leadership on organizational resilience in distance education institution: Higher-order SEM approach. Turkish Online J Distance Educ. 2024;25(2):115–29. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1260433 . Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437810180010 . Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall; 2010. Hambrick DC, Mason PA. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manage Rev. 1984;9(2):193–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628 . Harun MD, Hogset H, Mwesiumo D. Dynamic capabilities and sustainability performance: Exploring the moderating role of environmental dynamism in the Norwegian fishing industry. Sustain Dev. 2023;31(4):2636–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2536 . Holbeche L. The agile organization: How to build an engaged, innovative and resilient business. 3rd ed. Kogan Page; 2023. Hossain S, Fernando M, Akter S. Digital Leadership: Towards a Dynamic Managerial Capability Perspective of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Leader Capabilities. J Leadersh Organizational Stud. 2025;15480518251319624. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518251319624 . Ismail A, Hidajat T, Dora YM, Prasatia FE, Pranadani A. Leading the digital transformation: Evidence from Indonesia. Asadel; 2023. Javed HA, Nawaz S, Javed HA. Synthesis of success: Crafting sustainable performance through E-HRM innovation, organizational agility, and cultural harmony in SMEs. Pakistan J Humanit Social Sci. 2023;11(3):3379–95. https://doi.org/10.52131/pjhss.2023.1103.0621 . Ji T, de Jonge J, Peeters MC, Taris TW. Employee sustainable performance (E-super): Theoretical conceptualization, scale development, and psychometric properties. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(20):10497. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010497 . Keskin H, Akgün AE, Koçoğlu İ. Örgüt teorisi. Nobel Yayıncılık; 2016. [Organizational theory]. Khalaf SN. Eliciting the pivotal role of sustainable performance in linking organizational agility with institutional excellence in hotels and Egyptian travel agencies. J Association Arab Universities Tourism Hospitality. 2024;26(1):113–36. https://dx.doi.org/10.21608/jaauth.2024.275863.1560 . Khan AN. Artificial intelligence and sustainable performance: Role of organisational agility and environmental dynamism. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2023;1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2023.2290171 . Khan K, Khan Q, Jamil SH, Akbar S. A study on high performance organization framework and organization performance: Lens of dynamic capability theory. Cogent Bus Manage. 2024;11(1):2285415. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.228541 . Khaw TY, Teoh AP, Khalid A, S. N., Letchmunan S. The impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance: A systematic literature review. J Manage Dev. 2022;41(9/10):514–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2022-0070 . Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. Guilford Press; 2019. Lathabhavan R, Kuppusamy T. Examining the role of digital leadership and organisational resilience on the performance of SMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Productivity Perform Manage. 2024;73(8):2365–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2023-0069 . Lengnick-Hall CA, Beck TE, Lengnick-Hall ML. Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2011;21(3):243–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001 . Loureiro R, Ferreira JJ, Simões J. Understanding healthcare sector organizations from a dynamic capabilities perspective. Eur J Innov Manage. 2023;26(2):588–614. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2021-0085 . Mandal S, Dubey R. Effect of inter-organizational systems appropriation in agility and resilience development: An empirical investigation. Benchmarking: Int J. 2021;28(9):2656–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2020-0542 . Mollah MA, Masud A, A., Chowdhury MS. How does digital leadership boost competitive performance? The role of digital culture, affective commitment, and strategic agility. Heliyon. 2024;10(23):e40839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40839 . Motwani J, Katatria A. Organization agility: A literature review and research agenda. Int J Productivity Perform Manage. 2024;73(9):2709–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-07-2023-0383 . Musa S, Enggarsyah DTP. Absorptive capacity, organizational creativity, organizational agility, organizational resilience and competitive advantage in disruptive environments. J Strategy Manage. 2025;18(2):303–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-10-2023-0265 . Nguyen T, Le CV, Nguyen M, Nguyen G, Lien TTH, Nguyen O. The organisational impact of agility: A systematic literature review. Manage Rev Q. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00446-9 . Advance online publication. O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Res Organizational Behav. 2008;28:185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002 . Öztirak M, Bayram V. The mediator role of individual motivation in the relationship between digital leadership and organizational agility. J Organizational Behav Res. 2023;8(2):200–15. https://doi.org/10.51847/z16VKvyCpn . Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(3):879–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 . Rafi N, Ahmed A, Shafique I, Kalyar MN. Knowledge management capabilities and organizational agility as liaisons of business performance. South Asian J Bus Stud. 2022;11(4):397–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-05-2020-0145 . Ramadan M, Bou Zakhem N, Baydoun H, Daouk A, Youssef S, Fawal E, Elia A, J., Ashaal A. Toward digital transformation and business model innovation: The nexus between leadership, organizational agility, and knowledge transfer. Administrative Sci. 2023;13(7):185. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13080185 . Richtner A, Löfsten H. Managing in turbulence: How the capacity for resilience influences creativity. R&D Manage. 2014;44(2):137–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12050 . Robertson J, Botha E, Walker B, Wordsworth R, Balzarova M. Fortune favours the digitally mature: The impact of digital maturity on the organisational resilience of SME retailers during COVID-19. Int J Retail Distribution Manage. 2022;50(8/9):1182–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-10-2021-0514 . Ruiz-Martín C, Wainer G, Lopez-Paredes A. Exploration of network theory to evaluate organizational resilience. Int J Math Eng Manage Sci. 2022;7(1):28–45. https://doi.org/10.33889/IJMEMS.2022.7.1.003 . Sarfraz M, Ivascu L, Abdullah MI, Ozturk I, Tariq J. Exploring a pathway to sustainable performance in manufacturing firms: The interplay between innovation capabilities, green process, product innovations and digital leadership. Sustainability. 2022;14(10):5945. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105945 . Sharifi H, Zhang Z. A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations: An introduction. Int J Prod Econ. 1999;62(1):7–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00217-5 . Shin J, Mollah MA, Choi J. (2023). Sustainability and organizational performance in South Korea: The effect of digital leadership on digital culture and employees’ digital capabilities. Sustainability, 15 (3), 2027. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032027 Sürücü L, Yıkılmaz İ, Maşlakçı A. Dijital liderlik: Bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması [Digital leadership: A scale adaptation study]. Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2022;22(3):1038–50. https://doi.org/10.11616/asbi.1099012 . Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson. Teece DJ. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J. 2007;28(13):1319–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640 . Teece DJ. The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Acad Manage Perspect. 2014;28(4):328–52. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0116 . Teece DJ, Peteraf M, Leih S. Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. Calif Manag Rev. 2016;58(4):13–35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13 . Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J. 1997;18(7):509–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266 . )18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z. Tian H, Han J, Sun M, Lv X. Keeping pace with the times: Research on the impact of digital leadership on radical green innovation of manufacturing enterprises. Eur J Innov Manage. 2025;28(3):900–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2022-0647 . Tigre FB, Curado C, Henriques PL. Digital leadership: A bibliometric analysis. J Leadersh Organizational Stud. 2023;30(1):40–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221123132 . Turyadi I, Zulkifli Z, Tawil MR, Ali H, Sadikin A. The role of digital leadership in organizations to improve employee performance and business success. Jurnal Ekonomi. 2023;12(02):1671–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ASOS.64738 . Türe Ö, Başar P. Dayanıklılık kapasitesi ölçeği uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenilirlik çalışması [Capacity for resilience scale adaptation, validity and reliability study]. J Acad Social Sci. 2022;134(134):465–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ASOS.64738 . Walter AT. Organizational agility: Ill-defined and somewhat confusing? A systematic literature review and conceptualization. Manage Rev Q. 2021;71(2):343–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00186-6 . Warner KSR, Wäger M. Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Plann. 2019;52(3):326–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001 . Wasono LW, Furinto A. The effect of digital leadership and innovation management for incumbent telecommunication company in the digital disruptive era. Int J Eng Technol. 2018;7(229):125–30. Willie M. Leveraging digital resources: A resource-based view perspective. Gold Ratio Hum Resource Manage. 2025;5(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.52970/grhrm.v5i1.415 . Yahya A, Rozik TA, Nabil SA. Green and digital leadership: Impact on sustainable performance, mediating environmental knowledge sharing, moderating technological innovation. J Ecohumanism. 2024;3(7):3761–78. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i7.4499 . Zeike S, Bradbury K, Lindert L, Pfaff H. Digital leadership skills and associations with psychological well-being. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(14):2628. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142628 . Tables Table 1 to 6 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Table1.docx Table2.docx Table3.docx Table4.docx Table5.docx Table6.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 15 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 11 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 05 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Nov, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 25 Nov, 2025 Editor invited by journal 10 Nov, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 07 Nov, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 07 Nov, 2025 First submitted to journal 06 Nov, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8045805","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":543948613,"identity":"3cc8004e-a5d2-422d-bff4-2fb1cdbd25b6","order_by":0,"name":"Uzunbacak Hasan Hüseyin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Süleyman Demirel University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Uzunbacak","middleName":"Hasan","lastName":"Hüseyin","suffix":""},{"id":543948614,"identity":"8f58ca07-5412-47e9-82bc-b8be1d2453fd","order_by":1,"name":"Karagöz Şerife","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Avrasya University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Karagöz","middleName":"","lastName":"Şerife","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-06 08:53:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8045805/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8045805/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":96239667,"identity":"49a4da10-911c-424f-834c-0355d2a5011d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:07:17","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":230556,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscript.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/e9568c7b24f823e335a74798.docx"},{"id":95830402,"identity":"585b1cd3-30f2-41f2-b231-c60f75ec3d08","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15539,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/f293dfd234136f324ae86c58.docx"},{"id":95830413,"identity":"7b78d27b-39b1-4b89-99dd-5a44599e7887","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17262,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/2a61108fac3347c7e5f23045.docx"},{"id":95830400,"identity":"6fdbcedf-3909-477e-a06f-cfe39e29dc9e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14298,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table3.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/dd4dc05f4e7d1a138db02f2a.docx"},{"id":96239343,"identity":"ed7f74dc-350f-4e45-9ef3-ef6d72fecb56","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:06:15","extension":"docx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14399,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table4.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/11bfda506732cde34bd50655.docx"},{"id":96239554,"identity":"8dfc9f80-1fab-4aba-b331-20cd4c1cc5aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:06:57","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14881,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table5.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/05a6f58ec193430306e56baa.docx"},{"id":96239433,"identity":"f2cf24d7-b28a-4bd3-92cb-101817cc8d77","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:06:37","extension":"docx","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14415,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table6.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/d10d4a7125e46446df92b3b1.docx"},{"id":96239521,"identity":"4a66b9cb-21be-43fd-84cf-bac361fe4ffb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:06:53","extension":"json","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4409,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"8bec872f0244412c93757f7230bd790b.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/8ec655234aef9a30e10c8c03.json"},{"id":95830411,"identity":"1998484d-4cb8-4e1a-8659-ff87e89a1ade","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"docx","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":52852,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AuthorDetails.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/a84c1e44e51418e8f9d7e6d0.docx"},{"id":95830414,"identity":"54a05732-0473-47b1-a0db-21c4376cd5bb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"docx","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15863,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"CoverLetterd1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/d93e9e668b81986ad037035e.docx"},{"id":96240952,"identity":"ddc560ee-da58-48b3-8113-04161dbee483","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:09:45","extension":"xml","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":198845,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"8bec872f0244412c93757f7230bd790b1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/5c288d9b3d04c5db74c22dff.xml"},{"id":95830416,"identity":"f7ef4074-6348-497d-b430-5398d42244f0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":30891,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/6175d77cb877f79d170e9598.png"},{"id":95830419,"identity":"7b7e688b-b781-4faf-b7cd-8416b5a3add4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"xml","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":196567,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"8bec872f0244412c93757f7230bd790b1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/e8e0086a0f2d861191ffb6e9.xml"},{"id":95830418,"identity":"f2461119-d422-4c8a-87b6-c5f2f4549c6a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"html","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":204141,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/deaa78f53bc1ac0b4214fa92.html"},{"id":96239363,"identity":"ab5c9dd5-b83a-4fec-9354-ee31ff2703d7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:06:23","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":182291,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResearch Model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/6638ead8196898b3ca958935.jpeg"},{"id":96362719,"identity":"ac435588-05ca-442d-831a-3cdb8f556bfe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 09:46:20","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1105282,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/6b292c4e-5085-4cd0-ad27-8e74cb37b2d1.pdf"},{"id":95830399,"identity":"d0b1c715-4384-4f4a-be8c-2105c53e29f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":15539,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/3f00fdd33d44ebedb49896e2.docx"},{"id":95830403,"identity":"c640d365-7702-49ab-8ae1-ba75978f889e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":17262,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/3c499394665264c71f2a8217.docx"},{"id":95830408,"identity":"8296bb59-c029-428a-a9f1-71cae8ff6b7a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":14298,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table3.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/a6fa879a63f5f4b15f9569ab.docx"},{"id":95830405,"identity":"10ddebb9-5b36-49f2-90e0-1715c7fa9d33","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":14399,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table4.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/39c7177d5306253173c8b003.docx"},{"id":95830410,"identity":"7405a296-60c3-40a4-8e7f-4d5d9792f1ea","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 12:15:12","extension":"docx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":14881,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table5.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/95f7b0325d0814296d8840cf.docx"},{"id":96240389,"identity":"3c1e62b9-ab66-4356-97c5-9bb44cc331fa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:08:52","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":14415,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table6.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8045805/v1/96c2f1a4853476b1ebc4a72e.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Digital Leadership from the Perspective of Dynamic Capabilities: The Effect on Sustainable Performance and Resilience through Agility ","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDigital disruption has changed organizations in an unprecedented way (Tigre et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In an era characterized by rapidly evolving technological advancements and shifting stakeholder expectations, organizations need not only management skills but also leaders who can keep up with digital developments in order to survive. Leaders' ability to understand and guide the digital world has a decisive impact on organizational success (Erhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital leadership, derived from Hambrick and Mason\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) Upper Echelons Theory, suggests that organizational outcomes result from leaders\u0026rsquo; cognitive assessments. It refers to the integration of leadership skills and digital competencies to maximize the opportunities offered by digital technologies (Wasono and Furinto, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This integration enables strategic managers to effectively manage digital transformation processes, make technology-focused decisions, and improve business performance. The Upper Echelons Theory emphasizes that leaders should use their digital competencies to support organizational change and innovation (Finkelstein et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Leaders with digital competencies encourage innovative approaches among employees, thereby increasing both motivation and performance (Erhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is believed that leaders need to possess agility and adaptability in their decision-making resources to make the most of the changing environment and maximize organizational performance (Hossain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Digital leadership is a strategic approach that promotes innovation and collaboration, increasing organizational efficiency and productivity through effective use of technology (Turyadi, 2023). It also strengthens decision-making processes and contributes significantly to organizational goals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational agility, a dynamic capability, refers to the ability to quickly adapt to changing environmental conditions and deliver innovative, customer-focused solutions (Holbeche, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Organizational resilience, on the other hand, is an organization\u0026rsquo;s ability to reorganize resources, optimize processes, and align relationships to quickly overcome crises, turning challenges into growth opportunities (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Through digital transformation, organizations can not only respond quickly to crises but also improve their sustainable performance while fulfilling environmental responsibilities (Shin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Although Lathabhavan and Kuppusamy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) show that digital leadership can improve performance through resilience, more studies are needed to explore how digital leadership can achieve sustainability goals (Shin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, the mechanisms through which digital leadership influences sustainable performance and resilience remain underexplored.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to examine how digital leadership and organizational agility together impact sustainable performance and organizational resilience, addressing the identified gap in the literature. Furthermore, using organizational agility as a mediating variable will reveal the underlying mechanisms linking digital leadership with sustainable performance and organizational resilience. By doing so, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of how digital leadership, operating through agility as a dynamic capability, can enhance long-term organizational competitiveness, particularly in volatile and rapidly changing environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical Background and Hypothesis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDynamic Capabilities Theory\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn order to adapt to constantly changing environmental conditions, organizations need to effectively manage the processes of integrating, directing, and restructuring their resources and competencies. Dynamic Capabilities Theory posits that in environments characterized by high environmental variability, organizations must not only utilize their existing resources but also gain strategic flexibility through fundamental processes such as environmental change, innovation and learning, integration, and reconfiguration, thereby achieving sustainable competitive advantage (Teece et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Within this framework, dynamic capabilities focus on how organizations sense opportunities in their environment, how they evaluate these opportunities, and how they transform their organizational structure to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. The core components of the theory include the competencies of environmental sensitivity (sensing), seizing opportunities, and transforming resource structures (Khan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These competencies are developed more effectively through the strategic vision and technology-focused decision-making processes guided by digital leadership, thereby enabling organizations to remain agile and adaptable in the face of digitalization (Warner \u0026amp; W\u0026auml;ger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Dynamic competencies also nurture organizational agility, accelerating strategic decision-making processes in uncertain and rapidly changing market conditions (Teece et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This ensures that sustainable performance is based not only on financial indicators but also on long-term value creation integrated with environmental and social responsibility (Harun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, dynamic competencies enable organizations to respond flexibly during crises and develop institutional resilience in the face of changing conditions; in this respect, they are key determinants of organizational resilience (Lengnick-Hall, Beck \u0026amp; Lengnick-Hall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eO'Reilly and Tushman (2008) state that the success of organizations is largely dependent on their ability to adapt to the environment and use existing resources effectively. Dynamic capabilities are considered fundamental processes that support organizations' strategic restructuring and enable them to achieve sustainable competitive advantage and superior performance in constantly changing market conditions (Bleady et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e: 1). In this study, it is observed that digital leadership drives technological transformation, develops dynamic capabilities, and facilitates adaptation to market conditions. It is predicted that leaders increase agility by effectively integrating and structuring resources, and that agility strengthens both sustainable performance and organizational resilience (\u0026Ouml;ztırak \u0026amp; Bayram, 2023; Holbeche, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Azhar \u0026amp; Javed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, it is thought that organizational resilience can support long-term success by increasing the capacity for rapid recovery from crises and unexpected changes. Therefore, when viewed from the perspective of dynamic capabilities, digital leadership, organizational agility, and organizational resilience are considered decisive factors in organizations' processes of maintaining competitive advantage and adapting to changing environmental conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDigital Leadership and Organizational Agility\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the digital era, a business\u0026rsquo;s ability to maintain a competitive edge and adapt to environmental changes depends on organizational agility and digital leadership (Erer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Leadership is fundamental to promoting agility, and the leadership style adopted in an organization significantly influences the development of organizational agility (Ramadan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). According to the Dynamic Capabilities Theory, businesses must effectively structure their resources to adapt to changing environmental conditions and maintain their competitive advantage (Teece et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Digital leaders make strategic decisions by sensing environmental changes and accelerate organizational learning through innovative technologies. Thus, opportunities can be evaluated and strategies can be restructured (Motwani and Katatria, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Some studies in the literature address the relationship between digital leadership and organizational agility (Karafakioğlu \u0026amp; Fındıklı, 2024; \u0026Ouml;ztırak \u0026amp; Bayram, 2023). Considering the findings and theoretical approach, the following hypothesis has been developed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital leadership has a positive and significant effect on organizational agility.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDigital Leadership and Organizational Resilience\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the age of digital transformation, leaders\u0026rsquo; roles extend beyond setting strategy to enabling businesses to build resilience in the face of uncertainty. Leaders who influence the achievement of societal and business goals support continuity and growth by adapting to changing conditions (Art\u0026uuml;z et al., 2021: 101). Leaders are considered an influential factor in shaping interactions with employees (Chien, 2025). In this context, the concept of digital leadership stands out for its ability to guide digital transformation and effectively utilize technological innovations. Digital leadership enables businesses to gain a competitive advantage in constantly changing business environments while also contributing to the development of organizational resilience (Ruiz-Martin et al., 2022). Organizational resilience is the capacity of businesses to survive and thrive during crises, economic fluctuations, and technological changes. According to the Dynamic Capabilities Theory, businesses' sustainable competitive advantage depends on their capacity to perceive environmental changes and evaluate opportunities (Teece et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Digital leaders enhance organizations\u0026rsquo; adaptability by making decision-making processes more flexible and increasing resilience during crises. Digital competencies and technological innovations enhance businesses' adaptation capacity and resilience (Robertson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Considering the theoretical approach, the following hypothesis has been developed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital leadership has a positive and significant effect on organizational resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDigital Leadership and Sustainable Performance\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganizations need to have dynamic capabilities in order to effectively perceive and evaluate external opportunities. Dynamic capabilities are considered an important source of competitive advantage (Teece et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Dynamic capabilities, need to be continuously renewed in order to respond to environmental changes; organizations, on the other hand, must develop their capacities to sustain high levels of performance (Loureiro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The ability of organizations to sustain their competitive advantage depends on their level of digital transformation adoption. Digital leadership encompasses leadership approaches related to digital technologies and transformation processes, and influences organizational performance through innovative work behavior (Erhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Tian et al., 2023). The Dynamic Capabilities Theory considers the abilities to perceive, evaluate opportunities, and restructure as necessary for adaptation (Teece, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, by supporting employees\u0026rsquo; creative skills, innovation capabilities, and development of dynamic competencies, digital leadership has a decisive impact on both long-term individual performance and organizational sustainable performance (Sarfraz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e: 1; Khaw et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Some studies in the literature address the relationship between digital leadership and sustainable performance (Falcke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Alabdali et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Considering the findings and theoretical approach, the following hypothesis has been developed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital leadership has a positive and significant effect on sustainable performance.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eOrganizational Agility and Organizational Resilience\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganizational agility has a fundamental impact on increasing organizational resilience by enabling proactive responses to emerging risks and disruptions (Mandal and Dubey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). According to Dynamic Capabilities Theory, an organization\u0026rsquo;s agility directly relates to its ability to quickly adapt to environmental changes and effectively reorganize existing resources (Teece et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). This theory is an important element of strategic management in the processes of learning, innovating, and gaining flexibility. Agile organizations strengthen their resilience by quickly identifying opportunities, making decisions, and taking action (Holbeche, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Some studies in the literature address the relationship between organizational agility and organizational resilience (Alnasser et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Considering the findings and theoretical approach, the following hypothesis has been developed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational agility has a positive and significant effect on organizational resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eOrganizational Agility and Sustainable Performance\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational agility is a dynamic competency that can be learned and continuously accessed when necessary to increase business performance in a volatile market environment (Walter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Agile organizations can respond quickly to the market by leveraging collaboration and external stakeholder support, thereby improving performance and managing processes efficiently. Access to current technologies also improves employees\u0026rsquo; technological skills and overall performance (Rafi et al., 2021). According to the Dynamic Capabilities Theory, agile organizations adapt to environmental changes and develop their capabilities by continuously restructuring their resources (Teece et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Organizational agility supports businesses in gaining a competitive advantage and sustainable performance by enabling them to respond quickly to environmental opportunities using their dynamic capabilities. Some studies in the literature address the relationship between organizational agility and sustainable performance (Javed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Khan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Khalaf, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Considering the findings and theoretical approach, the following hypothesis was developed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOrganizational agility has a positive and significant effect on sustainable performance.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eOrganizational Agility as a Mediator\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between digital leadership, organizational resilience, and sustainable performance is strengthened when organizational agility is included as a mediating variable. Organizational agility is defined as the ability to adapt quickly to changing conditions and plays an important role in the context of the Resource-Based View and Dynamic Capabilities Theory. The Resource-Based View aims to understand how organizations achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Keskin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The theory provides a robust framework for organizations to gain a competitive advantage in a dynamic digital environment by leveraging digital resources. Principles in the digital domain enable organizations to develop successful strategies and emphasize the importance of digital platforms, technological capabilities, agility, and strategic partnerships (Willie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Over time, resources and advantages can reverse in value, so recent research has examined theories focusing on resource change and adaptation (Keskin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Combined, the resource-based view and dynamic capabilities theory suggest that organizations must not only possess valuable resources but also manage and adapt them to a changing environment (Teece et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). While the Resource-Based View emphasizes the value of an organization's existing resources, the Dynamic Capabilities Theory focuses on how these resources should be adapted to changing conditions (Teece, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Agile organizations demonstrate the ability to mobilize resources, implement innovative solutions, and adapt their structures by perceiving threats and opportunities (Holbeche, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Digital leaders, on the other hand, reinforce competitive advantage through structures that support diversity, strengthen competencies, and create learning environments (Firmansyah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). It is assumed that the functions of digital leadership, such as encouraging innovation in organizations, strengthening employee competencies, and supporting continuous learning environments, will contribute to organizational agility and strengthen organizational resilience. In this context, the following hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOrganizational agility has a mediating effect on the impact of digital leadership on organizational resilience.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigitalization is a process in which organizations reshape their strategic priorities in order to remain competitive. In this process, digital leadership plays a critical role not only in the management of technological infrastructure, but also in transforming organizations' innovation capacity, agility level, and data-driven decision-making mechanisms (Ismail et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Digital leaders aim to build agile structures that can adapt to dynamic environmental conditions while turning technology into a strategic advantage. This goal is consistent with the dynamic capabilities theory (Teece, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e): Digital leadership supports sustainable performance by nurturing organizations' \u0026ldquo;sensing\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;seizing\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;transforming\u0026rdquo; capabilities to support sustainable performance. However, it can be argued that organizational agility must function as an intermediary mechanism for this effect to occur. Jasim et al. (2024) empirically confirmed the positive effects of digital leadership on creative performance, agility, and organizational learning. However, the direct impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance is limited by the organization's agility capacity. This is because agility enables the technological capabilities provided by digital transformation to be converted into operational flexibility and innovative applications (Doz \u0026amp; Kosonen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Research has shown that organizations with high levels of agility derive greater returns from their digital investments than organizations with low levels of agility. For example, \u0026Ccedil;allı \u0026amp; \u0026Ccedil;allı (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) found that the level of digitalization has a performance-enhancing effect in organizations with high levels of digitalization. This finding can be interpreted as a clue that the influence of leaders managing organizations with high levels of digitalization may also have an impact on performance. This finding shows that the impact of digital leadership cannot be fully realized without agility (Warner \u0026amp; W\u0026auml;ger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom a resource-based view (Barney, 1991) perspective, digital leaders turn technology into a rare and inimitable resource. However, for this resource to become a sustainable advantage, it must be supported by the organization's agility capacity. Agile organizations can quickly implement digital leaders' strategic decisions, adapt flexibly to technological changes, and respond instantly to customer demands. In a study by Mollah et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), organizations with high digital leadership but low agility experienced a decline in competitive performance levels, while organizations with high agility rapidly restructured their resources to increase their competitive performance levels. This situation proves that agility acts as a critical bridge between digital leadership and sustainable performance. In light of these theoretical and empirical findings, it can be argued that the effect of digital leadership on sustainable performance is mediated by organizational agility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOrganizational agility has a mediating effect on the impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section describes the research purpose, model, population, sampling method, data collection tools, and analysis procedures. This research aims to examine the effects of digital leadership on sustainable performance and organizational resilience and to determine the role of organizational agility as a mediating variable in these effects. The estimated model of the research is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study includes public- and private-sector employees, and used convenience sampling to collect the data. The sample consisted of 68.6% women and 31.4% men. In total, 54.5% of participants were married and 45.5% were single. The average age of participants was 36.9 years (SD = 8.48). Participants worked in various sectors: 20.8% in service, 13.5% in health care, 54.2% in education, 3.2% in manufacturing, 2.6% in retail, and 5.8% in other sectors. In terms of education, 1.6% had a high school diploma, 4.2% an associate degree, 27.6% a bachelor’s degree, and 66.7% a graduate degree. The distribution of participants according to demographic characteristics is shown in Table\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/b\u003e Demographic Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData were collected using an online survey. Participants received survey links via Google Forms. The first page explained the purpose of the study, assured participants of anonymity, and informed them that they could stop responding at any time. Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from Çankaya University (Ethics Committee No. 46, dated 27 June 2024). The survey was distributed via online channels (e.g., WhatsApp, Instagram, Telegram). Data were collected in January–February 2025. Of 354 returned surveys, 42 were discarded due to incomplete or incorrect responses, leaving 312 valid surveys for analysis. Anderson and Gerbing (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) posit that a minimum sample size of 150 is necessary to ensure robust parameter estimation in structural equation modeling (SEM). Furthermore, Tabachnick and Fidell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, p. 482) suggest that variables demonstrating skewness and kurtosis values within the range of ± 1.5 can be considered approximately normally distributed. In the present study, all observed values for skewness and kurtosis fell within these thresholds, thereby satisfying the assumption of normality. Moreover, the sample size (N = 312) exceeds the recommended minimum for SEM, further supporting the robustness of the analytical approach. In this study, the skewness and kurtosis values fall within the specified range (Table\u0026nbsp;3). In this context, it is concluded that the sample meets the normal distribution condition (at a 95% confidence level) and that the sample size is adequate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eScales measuring digital leadership, organizational agility, organizational resilience, and sustainable performance were used. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree). A demographic questionnaire collected participants’ gender, marital status, age group, education level and sector of employment at their current institution. Below are details regarding the psychometric properties of the scales:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDigital Leadership\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDeveloped by Zeike et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and adapted into Turkish by Sürücü et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the scale consists of six statements and a single dimension. The Cronbach Alpha value of the scale is .90. There are no reverse statements in the scale. An example item from the scale is “I can say that my manager is an expert in digital matters.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eOrganizational Agility\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDeveloped by Sharifi and Zhang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) and adapted into Turkish by Akkaya and Tabak (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), the scale consists of four dimensions (8 statements on competence, 3 statements on flexibility, 3 statements on responsiveness, and 3 statements on speed), totaling 17 statements. The Cronbach Alpha value of the scale was found to be .92, and the results obtained based on the dimensions were as follows: .84 for the competence dimension, .81 for the flexibility dimension, .74 for the responsiveness dimension, and .85 for the speed dimension. There are no reverse statements in the scale. An example item from the scale is the statement, “The organization I work for has a strategic vision that will achieve its long-term goals.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eOrganizational Resilience\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Resilience Capacity Scale developed by Richtner and Löfsten (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e:139) was used. The scale consists of a total of 21 different statements. The Turkish adaptation and translation of the scale was carried out by the researcher based on Türe and Başar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The Cronbach Alpha value is .92. An example item from the scale is the statement, “It succeeds in acting as a whole with all its employees.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEmployee Sustainable Performance\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scale developed by Ji et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and adapted into Turkish by Çilhoroz et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) was used. The scale consists of 10 statements and a single dimension, with a Cronbach Alpha value of .90. There are no reverse statements in the scale. An example item from the scale is the statement “Throughout my entire career, I will always be suitable for my job.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data obtained in this study were analyzed using various statistical methods. First, descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations), normality tests, reliability analyses, and Pearson correlations were performed using SPSS 22.0. We measured internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (range: − 1 to 1) was used to examine the direction and strength of linear relationships (Field, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using AMOS 24.0 to test the research model. Construct validity was assessed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and fit indices (χ²/df, CFI, TLI, etc.) were examined to evaluate model fit (Byrne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). We then used SEM path analysis to examine the hypothesized relationships. Indirect (mediating) effects were tested via bootstrap analysis (5,000 samples, 95% CI) (Preacher \u0026amp; Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Maximum likelihood estimation was used in SEM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eValidity and Reliability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the construct validity of the scales used in the study. CFA is a statistical technique used to test the suitability of a measurement tool's factor structure to a theoretical framework. This analysis determines how factors are related to observed variables and has a decisive effect on evaluating the structural validity of the measurement tool. CFA reveals the validity of the tool by analyzing factor loadings, goodness-of-fit indices, and inter-factor relationships, and ensures that the validation process is carried out in detail (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConvergent and discriminant validity analyses were conducted to assess construct validity, and scale reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. We will present descriptive statistics and correlations for digital leadership, organizational agility, organizational resilience, and sustainable performance variables, followed by structural equation modeling results, including the mediating role of organizational agility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;2.\u003c/b\u003e Factor Loadings, Validity, and Reliability\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConvergent validity was assessed using average explained variance (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) values. Discriminant validity was analyzed by calculating the square root of the AVE value. According to Fornell and Larcker (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e), the AVE value should be above .50 and the CR value should be above .70 for composite validity. In terms of discriminant validity, it was emphasized that the square root of the AVE value should be higher than the correlation coefficients with other structures. According to the data presented in Table\u0026nbsp;2, the results of the three tests are within the acceptable limits. Additionally, Table\u0026nbsp;4 shows that the the square root of the AVE values are higher than the correlation coefficients between the factors. This indicates that the scales have discriminant validity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, Harman's Single Factor Test was applied to assess whether there was a problem related to common method variance (CMV). The analysis revealed that the single-factor structure explained 38.8% of the total variance. Podsakoff et al. (2003) state that a ratio below 50% indicates that there is no common method variance problem. Accordingly, the fact that the ratio is below 50% indicates that there is no common method variance problem in the present study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWithin the scope of the study, the internal consistency coefficients of the measurement tools with established construct validity were calculated. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient. In the literature, a Cronbach's Alpha value above .70 indicates that the measurement tool has sufficient internal consistency and is therefore reliable (Field, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The Cronbach’s Alpha value of the digital leadership scale included in the study was calculated as .95, the organizational agility scale as .94, the organizational resilience scale as .94, and the sustainable performance scale as .91. These findings reveal that the Cronbach’s Alpha values of all scales are above the acceptable threshold value specified in the literature and thus support the reliability of the measurement tools in question.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;3.\u003c/b\u003e Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the first-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) process, the model fit values of all scales included in the study were evaluated together with the adjustments made to reach the threshold values specified in the literature. In the organizational resilience, digital leadership, and sustainable performance scales, no items were deleted; only covariances were added between the suggested error variances, and the analysis results showed that the structural validity of all three scales was ensured and that the fit indices were within acceptable limits (Table\u0026nbsp;3) (Kline, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e: 219). In the DFA process related to the organizational agility scale, it was determined in the first-order that some fit indices were below the threshold values in the literature. This is because Harrington (2009) states that the factor loading value should be .30 or above. In this context, the item with the statement “The organization I work for senses and perceives the direction of change within the scope of environmental change and is prepared for these changes,” which had a factor loading below the specified threshold, was removed from the model. It was determined that the factor loadings of the remaining 16 items were statistically significant (p \u0026lt; .001), and the analyses were re-conducted accordingly. As a result, it was determined that the structural validity of all scales was ensured and that the fit indices were within acceptable limits (Kline, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e: 219).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;4 presents statistical data showing the mean, standard deviation, and normality (skewness and kurtosis) coefficients of the variables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;4.\u003c/b\u003e Descriptive Statistics and Correlations\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe mean and standard deviation for digital leadership were 2.66 (SD = 1.01), indicating a slightly below-average perception. Organizational agility had a mean of 2.68 (SD = 0.75), close to average, while organizational resilience had a mean of 2.56 (SD = 0.75), below average. Sustainable performance had a mean of 2.03 (SD = 0.51), indicating a low level of perceived sustainable outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCorrelation analysis revealed positive, significant relationships between digital leadership and organizational agility (r = .718, p \u0026lt; .01), digital leadership and resilience (r = .708, p \u0026lt; .01), and digital leadership and sustainable performance (r = .141, p \u0026lt; .01). Organizational agility was strongly correlated with resilience (r = .727, p \u0026lt; .01) and moderately with sustainable performance (r = .250, p \u0026lt; .01). A weaker but significant positive correlation existed between resilience and sustainable performance (r = .234, p \u0026lt; .01). Overall, all relationships were positive and significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Results of the Hypothesis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSEM analysis confirmed acceptable model fit (χ²/df = 1.638; GFI = .91; AGFI = .99; NFI = .97; TLI = .93; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .045). Table\u0026nbsp;5 shows that digital leadership positively predicts organizational resilience (β = .23, p \u0026lt; .001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eand sustainable performance (β = .28, p \u0026lt; .001). Digital leadership also strongly predicts organizational agility (β = .72, p \u0026lt; .001), which in turn positively predicts both resilience (β = .66, p \u0026lt; .001) and sustainable performance (β = .30, p \u0026lt; .001).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;5.\u003c/b\u003e Bootstrap Regresion Results\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, H1 through H5 were supported. Organizational agility significantly mediated the effects of digital leadership on organizational resilience (H6) and on sustainable performance (H7). Digital leadership explained 23% of the variance in agility. Together, digital leadership and agility explained 74% of the variance in resilience and 72% of the variance in sustainable performance. These findings highlight organizational agility’s key mediating role in translating digital leadership into enhanced resilience and sustainable performance. Table\u0026nbsp;5 presents the values of the unstandardized (B) path coefficients.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;6.\u003c/b\u003e Unstandardized Coefficients\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the dynamically evolving business environment, digital leadership\u0026rsquo;s impact on sustainable performance and organizational resilience is increasingly important. Similarly, organizational agility strengthens an organization\u0026rsquo;s ability to adapt to change and achieve long-term success. This study examined the impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance and organizational resilience, and the mediating role of agility. Our findings indicate that digital leadership has a significant positive impact on organizational agility, suggesting that digital leadership supports agility in organizations. Digital leadership may enable organizations to become more open to change, eager to learn, and effective in leveraging technology. This finding aligns with prior studies on digital leadership and organizational agility (Karafakioğlu \u0026amp; Fındıklı, 2024; \u0026Ouml;ztıtrak \u0026amp; Bayram, 2023). In this framework, the similarities between the research findings and previous studies are striking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second finding is that digital leadership positively and significantly impacts organizational resilience. This suggests that digital leadership enhances an organization\u0026rsquo;s ability to withstand crises, uncertainties, and sudden environmental changes. Digital leaders\u0026rsquo; abilities to develop technology-based solutions, make rapid decisions, and foster knowledge-driven management can strengthen an organization\u0026rsquo;s capacity to cope with challenging conditions. This suggests that digital leadership is important not only for innovation and transformation but also for maintaining organizational continuity and stability. This result is consistent with prior research linking digital leadership and resilience (Lathabhavan \u0026amp; Kuppusamy, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, digital leadership significantly enhances sustainable performance, indicating a high likelihood of improved sustainability outcomes. Digital leaders facilitate technological adoption, innovation, and agile adaptation to environmental changes, which likely improves sustainable performance. However, the strategic orientations provided by digital leadership are likely to make an important contribution to long-term success and sustainability. In this case, it is thought that sustainable performance can be increased if digital leadership is managed correctly. There are some studies in the literature that address the relationship between digital leadership and sustainable performance (Khaw et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sarfraz et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Shin et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Falcke et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Alabdali et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Azhar \u0026amp; Javed, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These research findings are consistent with the results of previous studies. However, Yahya et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) found a positive but non-significant effect of digital leadership on sustainable performance, which contradicts our results. This discrepancy may arise from their limited sample of public-sector employees and the early stage of digital transformation in that context. Yahya et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) conducted their research on a limited sample of public employees working in local governments in Indonesia. In this context, digital leadership practices may not yet be sufficiently established or systematically implemented within organizations. In addition, the early stages of digital transformation processes may prevent digital leadership behaviors from directly reflecting on sustainable performance. This situation may have prevented the effect of digital leadership on sustainable performance from reaching a statistically significant level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFourth, organizational agility significantly and positively affects resilience, indicating that agility increases an organization\u0026rsquo;s capacity to cope with challenges. Agile organizations strengthen resilience through their ability to adapt quickly to changing conditions. This aligns with Teece (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), who notes that agility enables rapid strategic realignment during crises. In short, agile structures can increase an organization\u0026rsquo;s preparedness and resilience to sudden changes or crises. There are some studies in the literature that address the relationship between organizational agility and organizational resilience (Alnasser et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Musa \u0026amp; Enggarsyah, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The results of this study are consistent with similar studies in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFifth, organizational agility significantly and positively affects sustainable performance, indicating that agility contributes to sustainable success. Agile organizations improve long-term performance by quickly adapting to changes and innovating. This aligns with Teece (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), who argues that efficient resource use and rapid strategic adaptation support sustained success. In this context, organizational agility can be considered an important factor in increasing sustainable performance. Some studies in the literature address the relationship between organizational agility and sustainable performance (Javed et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Khan, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Khalaf, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the results of this study are consistent with previous findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSixth, organizational agility mediates the relationship between digital leadership and resilience. In other words, digital leadership enhances resilience primarily by increasing agility in the organization. Digital leaders enable organizations to adapt quickly to change by leveraging innovation and technology (Ruiz-Mart\u0026iacute;n et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In this regard, agility amplifies the impact of digital leadership on resilience. Additionally, the Dynamic Capabilities Theory emphasizes the ability of organizations to quickly adapt to environmental changes and challenges. Teece (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) states that dynamic capabilities are important for an organization to respond to changing market conditions and gain a competitive advantage. In this context, it can be argued that digital leadership, combined with organizational agility, can strengthen the capacity to increase organizational resilience. Thus, combining digital leadership with agility develops an organization\u0026rsquo;s dynamic capabilities and enhances its resilience to environmental changes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, agility also mediates the digital leadership\u0026ndash;sustainable performance relationship. This indicates that digital leadership boosts sustainable performance primarily by enhancing organizational agility. From a dynamic capabilities perspective (Teece et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), digital leadership increases an organization\u0026rsquo;s ability to adapt and innovate. Organizational agility enables effective use of these capabilities, thereby strengthening digital leadership\u0026rsquo;s impact on sustainable performance. In this context, it can be argued that the directions provided by digital leadership increase the likelihood of organizations achieving sustainable success through organizational agility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a theoretical standpoint, this study extends the Dynamic Capabilities Theory by empirically validating organizational agility as a dual mediator between digital leadership and both organizational resilience and sustainable performance. This finding highlights agility not only as a dynamic capability but also as a critical mechanism through which digital leadership translates into long-term strategic outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen evaluated within the context of Turkey, the findings suggest that certain cultural and structural factors may have influenced the results. The dominant hierarchical organizational structures, particularly in public institutions and some private sector organizations, may act as constraints on agility. Moreover, although the importance of digital transformation has increased, many leaders may lack sufficient awareness to fully embrace and implement this transformation at a strategic level, which may in turn limit the impact of digital leadership. Furthermore, the economic crises, political uncertainties, and global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic that Turkey has faced over the past decade have brought organizational resilience to the forefront as a critical necessity for survival. In this context, high levels of resilience are no longer a strategic choice but a mandatory requirement. Therefore, these cultural and environmental factors can be regarded as key dynamics that have shaped the study\u0026rsquo;s findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations of the Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has some limitations. First, the use of convenience sampling and voluntary participation limits the generalizability of the findings. In particular, the education sector is overrepresented (54.2% of the sample), which may bias the results given that educational institutions often differ from other industries in structure, digital maturity, and leadership practices. Caution is therefore advised when generalizing to sectors like manufacturing, retail, or healthcare. Second, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences. Third, using an online survey may introduce bias (e.g., social desirability). Additionally, external factors (sector dynamics, economic conditions, technological pace, organizational culture) were not controlled and may influence digital leadership, agility, performance, and resilience. Finally, this study measured digital leadership mainly in terms of technological competencies. For a more comprehensive understanding, future research should include human-centered aspects of leadership (e.g., emotional intelligence, empathy, social skills).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecommendations for Researchers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture scholarly inquiry should systematically examine the multifaceted influence of digital leadership on sustainable performance by interrogating its complex interplay with underlying organizational mechanisms, including cultural paradigms, intrinsic motivational frameworks, and psychosocial determinants of job satisfaction, while simultaneously addressing the critical yet underexplored dichotomy in its manifestations across hierarchical levels (employee versus managerial experiences) and institutional contexts (cross-sectoral and cross-cultural variations), thereby contributing to a more robust, globally-relevant theoretical framework. Methodologically, in-depth qualitative explorations could elucidate the dynamic, processual nature of digital leadership\u0026apos;s symbiosis with organizational agility, revealing contextual contingencies and mediating pathways, whereas longitudinal designs would enable the temporal mapping of these constructs\u0026apos; co-evolution and their cumulative performance implications. Furthermore, research should investigate the synergistic potential of digital transformation architectures, competence development ecosystems, and adaptive leadership models as catalytic mechanisms for sustainability, while also probing the often-overlooked relational dimensions - particularly the tripartite nexus of social capital accumulation, knowledge flow optimization, and engagement dynamics - that may constitute the foundational substrate of organizational resilience, ultimately yielding a more sophisticated, multi-theoretical understanding of digital leadership\u0026apos;s transformative capacity in contemporary organizational ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=3\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecommendations for Practitioners\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsidering the role of digital leadership in increasing organizational agility and resilience, it is essential that leaders develop their competencies in this area. Based on the findings of this study, digital leadership significantly influences both agility and resilience, suggesting that leadership development programs should focus on enhancing digital competencies, strategic vision, and change management skills. Training programs can be designed to impart digital leadership skills, and the strategic use of digital technologies should be encouraged. Moreover, when selecting digital leaders, organizations should prioritize not only technical expertise but also strategic thinking, effective communication, and the ability to motivate employees through transformation. These qualities are critical for translating digital initiatives into sustainable organizational outcomes, especially in dynamic and uncertain environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaking into account the potential impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance, it is recommended that practitioners integrate sustainability goals within a holistic digital transformation strategy. The study revealed that sustainable performance perceptions were relatively low, indicating a need for more strategic alignment between digital initiatives and long-term value creation. Financial concerns may lead individuals and organizations to prioritize short-term needs, making it more difficult to focus on long-term goals such as sustainability. Economic uncertainty and resource constraints can push sustainability investments into the background. Therefore, the impact of financial concerns on sustainable performance should be carefully considered and addressed within strategic planning processes. In doing so, appropriate support mechanisms can be developed to facilitate the adoption of sustainability goals and ensure long-term organizational competitiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven agility\u0026rsquo;s key role, organizations should establish flexible processes and agile decision-making mechanisms. Decision-making should be streamlined for rapid crisis response, and organizations should encourage quick adaptation to feedback. Investing in systems that support continuous learning and responsiveness is essential for leveraging agility as a strategic capability.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank all participants who contributed to the data collection process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; Contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the study conception and design.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study involved human participants. Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of \u0026Ccedil;ankaya University (Approval No: 46, dated 27 June 2024). All participants were informed about the purpose and scope of the research and provided written informed consent before participating in the interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkkaya B, Tabak A. \u0026Ouml;rg\u0026uuml;tsel \u0026ccedil;eviklik \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eğinin T\u0026uuml;rk\u0026ccedil;eye uyarlanması: Ge\u0026ccedil;erlik ve g\u0026uuml;venirlik \u0026ccedil;alışması [Adaptation to Turkish of organizational agility questionnaire: Reliability and validity study]. İş ve İnsan Dergisi. 2018;5(2):185\u0026ndash;206. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18394/iid.439184\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18394/iid.439184\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlabdali MA, Yaqub MZ, Agarwal R, Alofaysan H, Mohapatra AK. Unveiling green digital transformational leadership: Nexus between green digital culture, green digital mindset, and green digital transformation. J Clean Prod. 2024;450:141670. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141670\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141670\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlnasser EM, Alkhozaim SM, Alshiha AA, Al-Romeedy BS, Khairy HA. Intellectual capital and organisational resilience in tourism and hotel businesses: Do organisational agility and innovation matter? Curr Issues Tourism. 2024;1\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2024.2378970\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13683500.2024.2378970\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson JC, Gerbing DW. The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1984;49(2):155\u0026ndash;73. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294170\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF02294170\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArt\u0026uuml;z SD, Bayraktar O. The effect of relation between digital leadership practice and learning organization on the perception of individual performance. İstanbul Ticaret \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2021;20(40):97\u0026ndash;120. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.761479\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.46928/iticusbe.761479\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAzhar J, Javed T. The moderating role of digital innovation between digital leadership, learning, and sustainable performance among small and medium-sized firms. J Policy Res. 2024;10(3):337\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.61506/02.00351\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.61506/02.00351\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBleady A, Ali A, Ibrahim S. Dynamic capabilities theory: Pinning down a shifting concept. Acad Acc Financial Stud J. 2018;22(2):1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eByrne BM. (2016). \u003cem\u003eStructural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781315757421\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen R, Xie Y, Liu Y. Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring organizational resilience: A multiple case study. Sustainability. 2021;13(5):2517. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su13052517\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su13052517\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChien CJ. Leader identification and disidentification: Constructs, measurements, and nomological network. J Leadersh Organizational Stud. 2024;32(1):12\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/15480518241301235\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/15480518241301235\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ccedil;allı BA, \u0026Ccedil;allı L. Dijital olgunluk, \u0026ouml;rg\u0026uuml;tsel \u0026ccedil;eviklik ve firma performansı arasındaki ilişkiler: KOBİ\u0026rsquo;ler \u0026uuml;zerine ampirik bir araştırma [Relationships between digital maturity, organizational agility, and firm performance: An empirical investigation on SMEs]. Bus Manage Studies: Int J. 2021;9(2):486\u0026ndash;502. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v9i2.1786\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15295/bmij.v9i2.1786\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ccedil;ilhoroz Y, Topaktaş G, Işık O. \u0026Ccedil;alışanın s\u0026uuml;rd\u0026uuml;r\u0026uuml;lebilir performansı (\u0026Ccedil;SP) \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eği: T\u0026uuml;rk\u0026ccedil;e ge\u0026ccedil;erlik-g\u0026uuml;venirlik \u0026ccedil;alışması [Employee sustainable performance (ESP) scale: Turkish validity-reliability study]. T\u0026uuml;rk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi. 2023;80(1):89\u0026ndash;100. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5505/TurkHijyen.2023.0024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5505/TurkHijyen.2023.0024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDoz Y, Kosonen M. The dynamics of strategic agility: Nokia's rollercoaster experience. Calif Manag Rev. 2008;50(3):95\u0026ndash;118. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/4116644\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/4116644\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErer B, Demirel E, Savaş Y. Dijital liderliğin g\u0026ouml;rsel haritalama tekniğine g\u0026ouml;re bibliyometrik analizi [Bibliometric analysis of digital leadership according to visual mapping technique]. Uluslararası Liderlik \u0026Ccedil;alışmaları Dergisi: Kuram ve Uygulama. 2023;6(1):1\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.52848/ijls.1257255\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.52848/ijls.1257255\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErhan T, Uzunbacak HH, Aydin E. From conventional to digital leadership: Exploring digitalization of leadership and innovative work behavior. Manage Res Rev. 2022;45(12):1524\u0026ndash;43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2021-0338\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/MRR-05-2021-0338\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFalcke L, Zobel AK, Yoo Y, Tucci C. Digital sustainability strategies: Digitally enabled and digital-first innovation for net zero. Acad Manage Perspect. 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2023.0169\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/amp.2023.0169\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Advance online publication.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eField A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 4th ed. Sage; 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFinkelstein S, Hambrick DC, Cannella AA. Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press; 2009.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFirmansyah F, Erda G, Khurniawan AW. The impact of digital transformation and leadership on organizational resilience in distance education institution: Higher-order SEM approach. Turkish Online J Distance Educ. 2024;25(2):115\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1260433\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17718/tojde.1260433\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00222437810180010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/00222437810180010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall; 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHambrick DC, Mason PA. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manage Rev. 1984;9(2):193\u0026ndash;206. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/amr.1984.4277628\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarun MD, Hogset H, Mwesiumo D. Dynamic capabilities and sustainability performance: Exploring the moderating role of environmental dynamism in the Norwegian fishing industry. Sustain Dev. 2023;31(4):2636\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2536\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/sd.2536\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolbeche L. The agile organization: How to build an engaged, innovative and resilient business. 3rd ed. Kogan Page; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHossain S, Fernando M, Akter S. Digital Leadership: Towards a Dynamic Managerial Capability Perspective of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Leader Capabilities. J Leadersh Organizational Stud. 2025;15480518251319624. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/15480518251319624\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/15480518251319624\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIsmail A, Hidajat T, Dora YM, Prasatia FE, Pranadani A. Leading the digital transformation: Evidence from Indonesia. Asadel; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaved HA, Nawaz S, Javed HA. Synthesis of success: Crafting sustainable performance through E-HRM innovation, organizational agility, and cultural harmony in SMEs. Pakistan J Humanit Social Sci. 2023;11(3):3379\u0026ndash;95. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.52131/pjhss.2023.1103.0621\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.52131/pjhss.2023.1103.0621\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJi T, de Jonge J, Peeters MC, Taris TW. Employee sustainable performance (E-super): Theoretical conceptualization, scale development, and psychometric properties. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(20):10497. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010497\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph182010497\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeskin H, Akg\u0026uuml;n AE, Ko\u0026ccedil;oğlu İ. \u0026Ouml;rg\u0026uuml;t teorisi. Nobel Yayıncılık; 2016. [Organizational theory].\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhalaf SN. Eliciting the pivotal role of sustainable performance in linking organizational agility with institutional excellence in hotels and Egyptian travel agencies. J Association Arab Universities Tourism Hospitality. 2024;26(1):113\u0026ndash;36. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dx.doi.org/10.21608/jaauth.2024.275863.1560\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21608/jaauth.2024.275863.1560\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan AN. Artificial intelligence and sustainable performance: Role of organisational agility and environmental dynamism. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2023;1\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2023.2290171\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09537325.2023.2290171\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan K, Khan Q, Jamil SH, Akbar S. A study on high performance organization framework and organization performance: Lens of dynamic capability theory. Cogent Bus Manage. 2024;11(1):2285415. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.228541\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/23311975.2023.228541\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhaw TY, Teoh AP, Khalid A, S. N., Letchmunan S. The impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance: A systematic literature review. J Manage Dev. 2022;41(9/10):514\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2022-0070\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JMD-03-2022-0070\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. Guilford Press; 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLathabhavan R, Kuppusamy T. Examining the role of digital leadership and organisational resilience on the performance of SMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Productivity Perform Manage. 2024;73(8):2365\u0026ndash;84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2023-0069\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJPPM-02-2023-0069\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLengnick-Hall CA, Beck TE, Lengnick-Hall ML. Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 2011;21(3):243\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoureiro R, Ferreira JJ, Sim\u0026otilde;es J. Understanding healthcare sector organizations from a dynamic capabilities perspective. Eur J Innov Manage. 2023;26(2):588\u0026ndash;614. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2021-0085\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EJIM-02-2021-0085\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMandal S, Dubey R. Effect of inter-organizational systems appropriation in agility and resilience development: An empirical investigation. Benchmarking: Int J. 2021;28(9):2656\u0026ndash;81. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2020-0542\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/BIJ-10-2020-0542\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMollah MA, Masud A, A., Chowdhury MS. How does digital leadership boost competitive performance? The role of digital culture, affective commitment, and strategic agility. Heliyon. 2024;10(23):e40839. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40839\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40839\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMotwani J, Katatria A. Organization agility: A literature review and research agenda. Int J Productivity Perform Manage. 2024;73(9):2709\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-07-2023-0383\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJPPM-07-2023-0383\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMusa S, Enggarsyah DTP. Absorptive capacity, organizational creativity, organizational agility, organizational resilience and competitive advantage in disruptive environments. J Strategy Manage. 2025;18(2):303\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-10-2023-0265\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JSMA-10-2023-0265\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNguyen T, Le CV, Nguyen M, Nguyen G, Lien TTH, Nguyen O. The organisational impact of agility: A systematic literature review. Manage Rev Q. 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00446-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11301-024-00446-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Advance online publication.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Reilly CA, Tushman ML. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator\u0026rsquo;s dilemma. Res Organizational Behav. 2008;28:185\u0026ndash;206. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;ztirak M, Bayram V. The mediator role of individual motivation in the relationship between digital leadership and organizational agility. J Organizational Behav Res. 2023;8(2):200\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.51847/z16VKvyCpn\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.51847/z16VKvyCpn\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePreacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(3):879\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3758/BRM.40.3.879\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRafi N, Ahmed A, Shafique I, Kalyar MN. Knowledge management capabilities and organizational agility as liaisons of business performance. South Asian J Bus Stud. 2022;11(4):397\u0026ndash;417. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-05-2020-0145\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/SAJBS-05-2020-0145\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamadan M, Bou Zakhem N, Baydoun H, Daouk A, Youssef S, Fawal E, Elia A, J., Ashaal A. Toward digital transformation and business model innovation: The nexus between leadership, organizational agility, and knowledge transfer. Administrative Sci. 2023;13(7):185. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13080185\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/admsci13080185\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichtner A, L\u0026ouml;fsten H. Managing in turbulence: How the capacity for resilience influences creativity. R\u0026amp;D Manage. 2014;44(2):137\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12050\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/radm.12050\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobertson J, Botha E, Walker B, Wordsworth R, Balzarova M. Fortune favours the digitally mature: The impact of digital maturity on the organisational resilience of SME retailers during COVID-19. Int J Retail Distribution Manage. 2022;50(8/9):1182\u0026ndash;204. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-10-2021-0514\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJRDM-10-2021-0514\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuiz-Mart\u0026iacute;n C, Wainer G, Lopez-Paredes A. Exploration of network theory to evaluate organizational resilience. Int J Math Eng Manage Sci. 2022;7(1):28\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.33889/IJMEMS.2022.7.1.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.33889/IJMEMS.2022.7.1.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSarfraz M, Ivascu L, Abdullah MI, Ozturk I, Tariq J. Exploring a pathway to sustainable performance in manufacturing firms: The interplay between innovation capabilities, green process, product innovations and digital leadership. Sustainability. 2022;14(10):5945. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su14105945\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su14105945\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharifi H, Zhang Z. A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations: An introduction. Int J Prod Econ. 1999;62(1):7\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00217-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00217-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShin J, Mollah MA, Choi J. (2023). Sustainability and organizational performance in South Korea: The effect of digital leadership on digital culture and employees\u0026rsquo; digital capabilities. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 2027. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su15032027\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su15032027\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eS\u0026uuml;r\u0026uuml;c\u0026uuml; L, Yıkılmaz İ, Maşlak\u0026ccedil;ı A. Dijital liderlik: Bir \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;ek uyarlama \u0026ccedil;alışması [Digital leadership: A scale adaptation study]. Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2022;22(3):1038\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.11616/asbi.1099012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.11616/asbi.1099012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTabachnick BG, Fidell LS. (2013). \u003cem\u003eUsing multivariate statistics\u003c/em\u003e (6th ed.). Pearson.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeece DJ. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J. 2007;28(13):1319\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/smj.640\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeece DJ. The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Acad Manage Perspect. 2014;28(4):328\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0116\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/amp.2013.0116\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeece DJ, Peteraf M, Leih S. Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. Calif Manag Rev. 2016;58(4):13\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J. 1997;18(7):509\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. )18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTian H, Han J, Sun M, Lv X. Keeping pace with the times: Research on the impact of digital leadership on radical green innovation of manufacturing enterprises. Eur J Innov Manage. 2025;28(3):900\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2022-0647\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EJIM-11-2022-0647\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTigre FB, Curado C, Henriques PL. Digital leadership: A bibliometric analysis. J Leadersh Organizational Stud. 2023;30(1):40\u0026ndash;70. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221123132\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/15480518221123132\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTuryadi I, Zulkifli Z, Tawil MR, Ali H, Sadikin A. The role of digital leadership in organizations to improve employee performance and business success. Jurnal Ekonomi. 2023;12(02):1671\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ASOS.64738\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29228/ASOS.64738\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eT\u0026uuml;re \u0026Ouml;, Başar P. Dayanıklılık kapasitesi \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eği uyarlama, ge\u0026ccedil;erlik ve g\u0026uuml;venilirlik \u0026ccedil;alışması [Capacity for resilience scale adaptation, validity and reliability study]. J Acad Social Sci. 2022;134(134):465\u0026ndash;79. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ASOS.64738\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29228/ASOS.64738\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalter AT. Organizational agility: Ill-defined and somewhat confusing? A systematic literature review and conceptualization. Manage Rev Q. 2021;71(2):343\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00186-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11301-020-00186-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWarner KSR, W\u0026auml;ger M. Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Plann. 2019;52(3):326\u0026ndash;49. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWasono LW, Furinto A. The effect of digital leadership and innovation management for incumbent telecommunication company in the digital disruptive era. Int J Eng Technol. 2018;7(229):125\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWillie M. Leveraging digital resources: A resource-based view perspective. Gold Ratio Hum Resource Manage. 2025;5(1):1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.52970/grhrm.v5i1.415\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.52970/grhrm.v5i1.415\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYahya A, Rozik TA, Nabil SA. Green and digital leadership: Impact on sustainable performance, mediating environmental knowledge sharing, moderating technological innovation. J Ecohumanism. 2024;3(7):3761\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i7.4499\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.62754/joe.v3i7.4499\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZeike S, Bradbury K, Lindert L, Pfaff H. Digital leadership skills and associations with psychological well-being. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(14):2628. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142628\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph16142628\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 to 6 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Digital leadership, Organizational agility, Sustainable performance, Organizational resilience, Dynamic Capabilities Theory","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8045805/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8045805/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose\u003c/strong\u003e – This study aims to examine the impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance and organizational resilience, focusing on the mediating role of organizational agility. Based on the Dynamic Capabilities Theory, it explores how digitally competent leaders develop and leverage organizational capabilities to foster strategic adaptability and long-term success.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign/methodology/approach\u003c/strong\u003e – Data were collected from 312 public- and private-sector employees in Turkey using structured survey instruments. SPSS and AMOS were used to analyze the data. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and bootstrapping were applied to test direct and indirect effects, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed validity and reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings\u003c/strong\u003e – The findings reveal that digital leadership has a positive and significant impact on organizational agility, resilience, and sustainable performance. Furthermore, organizational agility significantly mediates the effects of digital leadership on both sustainable performance and organizational resilience. The results confirm the central assumptions of the Dynamic Capabilities framework by demonstrating that digital leadership enhances the organization’s ability to reconfigure internal processes in response to environmental changes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginality/value\u003c/strong\u003e – This study is among the first to empirically examine the mediating role of organizational agility in the digital leadership–resilience–sustainability nexus. It enriches the literature by providing robust evidence that digital leadership, operating through agility as a dynamic capability, enhances long-term organizational competitiveness in dynamic and uncertain environments.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Digital Leadership from the Perspective of Dynamic Capabilities: The Effect on Sustainable Performance and Resilience through Agility","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-13 12:15:07","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8045805/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-12-15T11:40:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-11T06:35:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"147170817714537220195827668442482318231","date":"2025-12-08T15:43:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-05T11:33:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"320124634397902572549926914994994906693","date":"2025-11-28T03:04:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"83002132865025236831341758397066674445","date":"2025-11-27T05:02:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"147229590832160008159253066954903540047","date":"2025-11-26T15:18:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-11-25T18:25:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-11-10T13:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-07T11:09:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-11-07T11:04:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-11-06T08:41:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e8b068a1-4cf0-45cc-baea-0ef5c651399b","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 13th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-19T03:24:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-13 12:15:07","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8045805","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8045805","identity":"rs-8045805","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}