Submitted:
30 March 2025
Posted:
31 March 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Context and Participants
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Ethics
2.4. Questionnaire
2.5. Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
Method Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| AEC | Architecture, engineering, and construction |
| BIM | Building information modeling |
| AI | Artificial intelligence |
| STA | Swedish Transport Administration |
| COPSOQ III | Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire |
References
- Wen, Q. J.; Ren, Z. J.; Lu, H.; Wu, J. F. The progress and trend of BIM research: A bibliometrics-based visualization analysis. Autom. Constr. 2021, 124, 103558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, C.; Ribiere, V. Developing a unified definition of digital transformation. Technovation. 2021, Volume 102, 102217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kane, G. C.; Phillips, A. N.; Copulsky, J.; Andrus, G. How digital leadership is (n’t) different. MIT SMR, 2019, 60(3), 34-39.
- Olofsson Hallén, K.; Forsman, M.; Eriksson, A. Interactions between Human, Technology and Organization in Building Information Modelling (BIM) - A scoping review of critical factors for the individual user. Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 2023, Volume 97, 103480, ISSN 0169-8141. [CrossRef]
- Hanelt, A.; Bohnsack, R.; Marz, D.; Antunes Marante, C. A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. J. Manag. Stud, 2021, 58(5), 1159-1197. [CrossRef]
- Juyumaya, J.; Torres, J. P. A managers’ work engagement framework for the digital tasks. Front. psychol. 2023, 14, 1009459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tahirkheli, S. K.; Ajigini, O. A. Factors Influencing Digital Innovation Strategy in Organizations: An Empirical Analysis. IRMJ, 2022, 35(1), 1–23. [CrossRef]
- Olsson, A-K.; Eriksson, K.M.; Carlsson, L. Management toward Industry 5.0: a co-workership approach on digital transformation for future innovative manufacturing. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2025, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 65-84.
- Porfírio, J. A.; Carrilho, T.; Felício, J. A.; Jacinto, J. Leadership characteristics and digital transformation. J. Bus. Res. Volume 124, 2021, Pages 610-619, ISSN 0148-2963. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Huang, S.; Tian, C.; Guo, H. How do relational contracting norms affect IPD teamwork effectiveness? A social capital perspective. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 51(5), 538–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, L.; Teo, E.A.L. Organizational change perspective on people management in BIM implementation in building projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34(3), 04018008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kane. G. The Technology Fallacy, RTM, 2019, 62:6, 44-49. [CrossRef]
- Omer, M.M.; Mohd-Ezazee, N.M.A.; Lee, Y.S.; Rajabi, M.S.; Rahman, R.A. Constructive and Destructive Leadership Behaviors, Skills, Styles and Traits in BIM-Based Construction Projects. Buildings, 2022, 12, 2068. [CrossRef]
- Wong, S.S.K.; Cross, J.A.; Mueller, P.S. Impact of mentoring on practicing engineers: a meta-synthesis, J. Workplace Learn, 2018, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 415-441. [CrossRef]
- Celoza, A.; De Olivieira, D.P.; Leite, F. Qualitative analysis of the impact of contracts on information management in AEC projects. J CONSTR ENG M ASCE, 2023, 149.3: 04022185. [CrossRef]
- Zhu, F.; Wang, L.; Yu, M.; Yang, X. Quality of conflict management in construction project context: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. ECAM, 2020, 27(5), 1191–1211. [CrossRef]
- Haroon, A.; Paul, M.; Gerhard, G.; Gerrit, H.; Alexander, K. Measuring the Human Dimensions of Digital Leadership for Successful Digital Transformation. RTM, 2022, 65:3, 39-49. [CrossRef]
- Brandmo, C.; Tiplic, D.; Elstad, E. Antecedents of department heads’ job autonomy, role clarity, and self-efficacy for instructional leadership. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 2021, 24(3), 411–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thun, S.; Bakås, O.; Storholmen, T. Development and implementation processes of digitalization in engineer-to-order manufacturing: enablers and barriers. AI & Soc, 2022, 37, 725–743. [CrossRef]
- Zeb, A.; Goh, G.G.G; Javaid, M.; Khan, M.N.; Khan, A.U; Gul, S. The interplay between supervisor support and job performance: implications of social exchange and social learning theories. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2023, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 429-448. [CrossRef]
- Martin, S.R.; Emich, K.J.; McClean, E. J. Keeping Teams Together: How Ethical Leadership Moderates the Effects of Performance on Team Efficacy and Social Integration. J Bus Ethics, 2022, 176, 127–139. [CrossRef]
- Mahsud, R.; Yukl, G.; Prussia, G. Leader empathy, ethical leadership, and relations-oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader-member exchange quality. J. Manag. Psychol., 2010, 25(6), 561–577. [CrossRef]
- Hakanen, M.; Soudunsaari, A. Building trust in high-performing teams. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. June 2012: 38-41.
- Akerjordet K, Furunes T, Haver A. Health-promoting leadership: An integrative review and future research agenda. J Adv Nurs. 2018, Jul;74(7):1505-1516. [CrossRef]
- Alreshidi, E.; Monjur, M.; Yacine R. Factors for effective BIM governance. J. Build. Eng. 10, 2017, 89–101. [CrossRef]
- Biswas, H.K.; Tze, Y.S.; Sian, L.L. Impact of Building Information Modelling and advanced technologies in the AEC industry: A contemporary review and future directions. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 108165. [CrossRef]
- Yushasman, Y.N.Q.; Rizal, A.; Lee, Y.S.; Rahman, R.A. 2024. Trust Issues in BIM-Based Construction Projects: A Systematic Literature Review. In: Nehdi, M., Hung, M.K., Venkataramana, K., Antony, J., Kavitha, P.E., Beena B R (eds) Proceedings of SECON’23. SECON 2023. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 381. Springer, Cham. [CrossRef]
- Mubarak, M. F.; Petraite, M. Industry 4.0 technologies, digital trust and technological orientation: What matters in open innovation? TFSC, Volume 161, 2020, 120332, ISSN 0040-1625. [CrossRef]
- Morgan, B.; Papadonikolaki, E. Digital leadership for the built environment. In Industry 4.0 for the Built Environment: Methodologies, Technologies and Skills, 2021, pp. 591-608. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
- Stenmark, C.K. Transformational and transactional leadership behaviors and ethical perceptions: the effects of sensory processing sensitivity. J. Manag. Dev. 43.1, 2024, 1-12. [CrossRef]
- Erakovich, R.; Emile, K. Analysis of ethical leadership and integrity development in local government: The United States, The Netherlands, Montenegro, and Serbia. Int. J. Public Adm 39.11, 2016, 872–882. [CrossRef]
- Sanner, B.; Bunderson, J. S. When feeling safe isn’t enough: Contextualizing models of safety and learning in teams. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 5(3), 224–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weibel, A.; Schafheitle, S.; van der Werff, L. Smart Tech is all Around us – Bridging Employee Vulnerability with Organizational Active Trust-Building. J. Manag. Stud. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmona-Lavado, A.; Cuevas-Rodríguez, G.; Cabello-Medina, C. Social and organizational capital: Building the context for innovation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2010, 39(4), 681–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, D.J. 2018. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and mixed method approaches: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th edition. Sage Publications.
- Burr, H.; Berthelsen, H.; Moncada, S.; Nübling, M.; Dupret, E.; Demiral, Y.; Oudyk, J.; Kristensen, T.S.; Llorens, C.; Navarro, A.; Lincke, H-J.; Bocéréan, C.; Sahan, C.; Smith, P.; Pohrt, A. The third version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. SH@W, 2019, 10(4), 482-503. [CrossRef]
- Berthelsen H.; Westerlund H.; Bergström G.; Burr H. Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire Version III and Establishment of Benchmarks for Psychosocial Risk Management in Sweden. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020, May 2;17(9):3179. [CrossRef]
- Criado-Perez, C.; Shinkle, G. A.; Höllerer, M. A.; Sharma, A.; Collins, C.; Gardner, N.; Pan, S. Digital transformation in the Australian AEC industry: Prevailing issues and prospective leadership thinking. J CONSTR ENG M ASCE, 2022, 148(1), 05021012. [CrossRef]
- Bello, Abdulkabir; Abdulraheem, Aliyyu Abiola; Afolabi, Oladayo Popoola; Aka, Adefemi; Gbenga, Precious Oluwatofunmi. 2024. Assessing the Underlying Factors Affecting Trust and Transparency in the Construction Industry: A Mixed Method Approach. Construction Economics and Building, 24:1/2, 3–28.
- Krishnan, P.; Kumar, K. Transformational Leadership: The New Mantra for Pedagogy in Higher Education. In Engineering Pedagogy Towards Outcome-Based Education (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 33–46). CRC Press. [CrossRef]
- Yang, K.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Wang, C.C. Identifying Leadership Competencies for Construction 4.0. Buildings (Basel), 2022 12(9), 1434. [CrossRef]
- Farouk AM, Zulhisham AZ, Lee YS, Rajabi MS, Rahman RA. Factors, Challenges and Strategies of Trust in BIM-Based Construction Projects: A Case Study in Malaysia. Infrastructures. 2023; 8(1):13. [CrossRef]
- Henderson, L.S.; Richard W.; Rikke L. The centrality of communication norm alignment, role clarity, and trust in global project teams. Int J Proj Manag. 34.8, 2016, 1717-1730. [CrossRef]
- Kauppila, O-P. So, what am I supposed to do? A multilevel examination of role clarity. J. Manag. Stud. 51.5 2014, 737-763. [CrossRef]
- Kundu, S.C.; Kumar, S.; Lata, K. Effects of perceived role clarity on innovative work behavior: a multiple mediation model, RAUSP Manag. J. 2019, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 457-472. [CrossRef]
- Verlinden, S.; Wynen, J.; Kleizen, B.; Verhoest, K. Blurred Lines: Exploring the Impact of Change Complexity on Role Clarity in the Public Sector. Rev Public Pers Adm. 2022, 43(3), 479-503.
- Adepoju, O.; Aigbavboa, C.; Nwulu, N.; Onyia, M. 2022. Building Information Modelling. Re-skilling Human Resources for Construction 4.0: Implications for Industry, Academia and Government. Springer International Publishing: 43-64.
- Tanne, Y.A.; Indrayani, N.L.A. The advance integration and visualization of construction 4.0: automation, robotics, and BIM. Asian J Civ Eng 25, 5109–5121, 2024. [CrossRef]
- Khamiliyah, L.; Rahayu, A.; Dirgantari, P.D.; Wibowo, L.A.; Susanto, E. Digitalization of government organizations: an empirical study of strategic factors of H.R. resources. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2025 12(1). [CrossRef]
- Allen, M.S.; Iliescu, D.; Greiff, S. Single Item Measures in Psychological Science: A Call to Action. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 38, 1, 2022, 1–5. [CrossRef]
- Bergkvist, L.; Rossiter, J.R. The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs. J. Mark. Res. 44(2), 2007, 175-184.
- Wu, M-J.; Zhao, K.; Fils-Aime, F. Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep, Volume 7, 2022, 100206, ISSN 2451-9588. [CrossRef]
| Expert Area | Employees | Total Number of Invited Experts |
|---|---|---|
| Constructions | 61 | 156 |
| Design | 49 | 142 |
| Digital information management | 84 | 160 |
| Environment | 70 | 170 |
| Technical systems | 50 | 118 |
| Number of respondents included for analysis | 314 | 746 |
| Category | N. | ≈ % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Woman Man Other/do not wish to specify |
115 198 1 |
37 63 <1 |
| Age | <30 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 No response |
10 57 84 103 48 12 |
3 18 27 33 15 4 |
| Experience in current job skills | Less than 1 year 1–2 years 3–5 years 6–10 years More than 10 years No response |
34 30 70 73 106 1 |
11 10 22 23 34 <1 |
| Experience of work in digital work systems | Less than 1 year 1–2 years 3–5 years 6–10 years More than 10 years No response |
55 34 78 53 37 57 |
17 11 25 17 12 18 |
| Variable type | Variables | Source Questionnaire |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome variable | Trustful use of digital work systems | Single item |
| I trust and use our digital work systems | ||
| Explanatory Variable | Digital literacy of the management team | Single item |
| Our management team has the necessary skills to implement a digital strategy and to develop a digital business | ||
| Explanatory variable | Role clarity | COPSOQ |
| Does your work have clear objectives? | ||
| Do you know exactly which areas are your responsibility? | ||
| Do you know exactly what is expected of you at work? | ||
| Explanatory Variable | Vertical trust | COPSOQ |
| Does the management trust the employees to do their work well? | ||
| Can the employees trust the information that comes from the management? | ||
| Are the employees able to express their views and feelings? | ||
| Explanatory Variable | Social support from supervisor | COPSOQ |
| How often is your immediate superior willing to listen to your problems at work, if needed? | ||
| How often do you get help and support from your immediate superior, if needed? | ||
| Explanatory Variable | Leadership quality | COPSOQ |
| To what extent would you say that your immediate superior makes sure that the members of staff have good development opportunities? | ||
| To what extent would you say that your immediate superior is good at work planning? | ||
| To what extent would you say that your immediate superior is good at solving conflicts? |
| Index | Valid N | % | N of Items | Cronbach’s Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Role clarity | 305 | 90 | 3 | 0.813 |
| Vertical trust | 302 | 96 | 3 | 0.765 |
| Social support from supervisor | 298 | 95 | 2 | 0.805 |
| Leadership quality | 294 | 94 | 3 | 0.848 |
| Index | Correlation with Trustful Use of Digital Systems |
|---|---|
| Digital literacy of the management team | 0.395** |
| Role clarity | 0.378** |
| Vertical Trust | 0.301** |
| Social Support from Supervisor | 0.176** |
| Leadership Quality | 0.145* |
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 0.784 (0.418) | 0.773 (0.413) | 0.810 (0.397) | 1.293** (0.298) |
| Digital literacy of the management team | 0.257** (0.061) | 0.253** (0.060) | 0.230** (0.059) | 0.257** (0.057) |
| Role clarity | 0.320** (0.093) | 0.320** (0.092) | 0.321** (0.091) | 0.374** (0.087) |
| Vertical trust | 0.188 (0.111) | 0.168 (0.108) | 0.187 (0.101) | |
| Social Support from Supervisor | 0.049 (0.092) | 0.009 (0.074) | ||
| Leadership quality | -0.075 (0.113) | |||
| R Square | 0.266 | 0.261 | 0.247 | 0,234 |
| Adjusted R Square | 0.246 | 0.246 | 0.236 | 0.226 |
| Number of observations | 193 | 195 | 199 | 200 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).