Athamlebbe, R.; Rahman, R. A.; Haron, A. T. and Papadonikolaki, E. (2026) Evaluating competency development strategies to enhance digital leadership in the construction industry: The case of entry-level professionals. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(9): 04026140, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In the digital era, digital leadership (DL) is a transformative paradigm that promotes innovation, enhances performance, strengthens collaboration, and improves adaptability, thereby accelerating digital transformation in organizations. However, DL remains overlooked in the construction industry. Developing DL competencies across the construction workforce is therefore critical to be competitive in the digital era. This study aims to evaluate the impact of competency development strategies on enhancing DL among construction industry professionals, using entry-level professionals as a case study. A systematic literature review (SLR) and interviews with construction industry professionals identified 50 DL competencies and 24 competency development strategies. A survey evaluating the importance of the competencies and the effectiveness of the development strategies received 102 responses from construction industry professionals. The collected data were analyzed using normalized mean analysis (NMA), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). NMA revealed 33 critical DL competencies and 13 critical competency development strategies. EFA uncovered three competency constructs: transformational, digital, and technical and managerial, and two competency development strategy constructs: intraorganizational efforts and industry-academic alignment. PLS-SEM results indicate that intraorganizational efforts significantly impact the development of all three competency constructs. In contrast, industry-academic alignment significantly impacts only transformational competence. These findings highlight the need for organizations to reinforce intraorganizational strategies while selectively leveraging external partnerships to cultivate a DL-ready workforce. However, as industry-academic collaboration primarily supports transformational competence, holistic DL capability is principally enabled through targeted intraorganizational strategies. This study is the first to examine DL competency development at a role-specific level by identifying critical DL competencies and competency development strategies, and evaluating how these strategies support distinct DL domains through a strategy-competency fit approach, a new angle in DL construction research. This study aligns with broader sustainability goals (UN SDG) related to quality education and industry, innovation and infrastructure.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competency; construction; digital leadership; digital transformation |
| Index terms: | adaptability, competence, collaboration, survey, partial least square, transformation, case study, effectiveness, interview, exploratory factor analysis, paradigm, structural equation modelling, partnership, strategy, systematic literature review, construction industry |
| Subjects: | partnership management, statistical analysis, business, education and knowledge transfer, industry analysis, performance management, research evaluation and metrics, data collection methods, personnel development, management, user focus |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Organizational Design, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Human Resources, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here