2022-Top management team characteristics and digital innovation: Exploring digital knowledge and TMT interfaces

2022-高管团队特征与数字创新：探索数字知识和高管团队中的交互

Firk S, Gehrke Y, Hanelt A, et al. Top management team characteristics and digital innovation: Exploring digital knowledge and TMT interfaces[J]. Long Range Planning, 2022, 55(3): 102166.

Firk, S., Gehrke, Y., Hanelt, A., & Wolff, M. (2022). Top management team characteristics and digital innovation: Exploring digital knowledge and TMT interfaces. Long Range Planning, 55(3), 102166.

ABSTRACT

On their journey toward digital transformation, industrial firms need to embrace digital innovation. The top management team (TMT) is expected to set the course for digital innovation, which is a challenging endeavour given the novel and cross-functional nature of digital innovation. We draw on role theory to make sense of emerging role requirements for the TMT and combine this view with upper echelon theory to hypothesize on the specific TMT characteristics that are needed for digital innovation. We first theorize that firms could benefit from TMT digital knowledge. Second, we argue that the effective utilization of TMT digital knowledge can be fostered at internal TMT interfaces, such as between the chief executive officer (CEO), respectively a chief digital officer (CDO), and other top managers. Finally, we consider the TMT hierarchical structure as a contextual factor in the stimulation of TMT integration processes by integrative CEOs and CDOs. We employ panel data regressions to a longitudinal dataset of US industrial firms and find a positive relation between TMT digital knowledge and digital innovation, on average. We additionally find evidence for the integrative roles of CEOs and CDOs. However, our findings also indicate that the CDO’s integrating role can be hampered by a strong hierarchical structure in the TMT.

摘要：在实现数字化转型的过程中，工业企业需要拥抱数字创新。鉴于数字创新的新颖性和跨职能性，高管团队（TMT）有望为数字创新指明方向，这是一项具有挑战性的工作。我们借鉴角色理论来理解TMT中新出现的角色要求，并将这一观点与高阶梯队理论相结合，从而对数字创新所需的具体TMT特征提出假设。首先，我们根据理论推断企业可以从TMT数字知识中获益。其次，我们认为TMT的内部交互（如首席执行官（CEO）、首席数字官（CDO）和其他高管之间）能够促进TMT数字知识的有效利用。最后，我们将TMT的层级结构视为整合型CEO和CDO促进TMT整合过程的一个情境因素。通过对美国工业企业的纵向数据集进行面板数据回归，我们发现TMT的数字知识与数字创新之间呈正相关。我们还发现CEO和CDO发挥整合角色的证据。不过，我们的研究结果也表明TMT中强大的层级结构可能会阻碍CDO发挥整合作用。

1. Introduction

1.引言

To deal with the opportunities and threats associated with digital transformation (Verhoef et al., 2021), incumbent firms, even in industrial contexts, have placed digital innovation at the top of their strategic agendas (Björkdahl, 2020; Chanias et al., 2019). However, many industrial firms struggle to unleash its full potential (Svahn et al., 2017). Especially due to the novel and cross-functional nature of digital innovation (Bharadwaj et al.,2013; Nambisan et al., 2017; Yoo et al., 2012), the initiation and implementation of digital innovation is extremely challenging in these firms (Correani et al., 2020). To overcome these challenges, conceptual and case-based research point to the crucial influence of the top management team (TMT) (e.g., Chanias et al., 2019; Kohli and Melville, 2019). In particular, the TMT is key to lay the foundation for digital innovation due to its responsibilities in terms of recognizing digital innovation’s strategic potentials, articulating its strategic relevance, and allocating resources (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Wrede et al., 2020).

为了应对与数字化转型相关的机遇和威胁（Verhoef et al., 2021），即便在工业领域，现有企业也已将数字创新列为其战略议程的重中之重（Björkdahl, 2020; Chanias et al., 2019）。然而，许多工业企业难以充分释放数字创新的潜力（Svahn et al., 2017）。特别是由于数字创新的新颖性和跨职能性（Bharadwaj et al.,2013; Nambisan et al., 2017; Yoo et al., 2012），数字创新的启动和实施对这些企业而言极具挑战性（Correani et al., 2020）。为了克服这些挑战，概念性研究和基于案例的研究指出，高管团队（TMT）具有至关重要的影响（e.g., Chanias et al., 2019; Kohli and Melville, 2019）。特别地，TMT因其在识别数字创新的战略潜力、阐明其战略相关性和分配资源方面的责任，成为奠定数字创新基础的关键（Floyd and Lane, 2000; Wrede et al., 2020）。

How top managers interpret and execute their roles for digital innovation is of great interest from both, an academic (e.g., Volberda et al., 2021; Wrede et al., 2020) and practice perspective (e.g., Furr et al., 2019; Westerman et al., 2012). The need for digital innovation presents a new situational demand that could change the requirements of traditional TMT roles (Nicholson, 1984) and, thus, be challenging for the TMT. First, top managers need to understand and make sense of digital innovation characteristics (Hanelt et al., 2021a; Wrede et al., 2020), which, however, require fundamentally different cognitive assumptions than those that are institutionalized in industrial firms (Henfridsson and Yoo, 2014; Yoo et al., 2012). Second, due to the cross-functional nature of digital innovation, laying its foundation requires top managers to interpret digital innovation as a shared TMT responsibility and to cope with blurring boundaries of traditional roles (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Warner and Wäger, 2019). Such novel and potentially conflicting role transitions are known as a key issue in TMT research, as they are linked to cognitive and behavioral difficulties for top managers (Floyd and Lane, 2000).

无论是从学术角度（e.g., Volberda et al., 2021; Wrede et al., 2020）还是从实践角度（e.g., Furr et al., 2019; Westerman et al., 2012）来看，高管如何诠释和执行他们在数字创新中的角色都是非常值得关注的问题。数字创新的需求提出了一种可能改变传统TMT角色要求的新型情境需求（Nicholson, 1984），这对TMT而言具有挑战性。首先，高管需要了解并理解数字创新的特点（Hanelt et al., 2021a; Wrede et al., 2020），而这需要从本质上区别于工业企业制度化的认知假设（Henfridsson and Yoo, 2014; Yoo et al., 2012）。其次，由于数字创新的跨职能性质，奠定其基础需要高管将数字创新视为TMT的共同责任并解决TMT传统角色界限模糊的问题（Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Warner and Wäger, 2019）。众所周知，由于同高管的认知和行为困难相关，这种新颖且可能相互冲突的角色转换成为TMT研究中的一个关键问题（Floyd and Lane, 2000）。

Given these emerging role requirements for the TMT caused by digital innovation, it is important to understand which characteristics help the TMT to be successful at facilitating digital innovation (Volberda et al., 2021). Especially, the individual characteristics of top managers are critical in the interpretation and execution of their roles (Ahn et al., 2017; Chapman and Hewitt-Dundas, 2018; Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Conceptual and case-based research indicates that top managers need to be aware of and support digital innovation endeavors (Chanias et al., 2019; Hanelt et al., 2021a; Volberda et al., 2021) and thus indicates that top managers may need to adapt their individual characteristics to the emerging role requirements. However, empirical evidence on the specific characteristics needed to increase the TMT’s awareness remains scarce. Moreover, research suggests that considering behavioral integration—i.e., the extent of information exchange, collaborative behavior, and decision-making participation in the TMT (Hambrick, 2007; Simsek et al., 2005)—is important to understand how individual TMT characteristics actually translate into firm outcomes (Buyl et al., 2011; Georgakakis et al., 2017; Heyden et al., 2013). Although this research provides valuable insights into TMT processes, it falls short in accounting for the specific peculiarities of digital innovation.

鉴于数字创新对TMT提出这些新的角色要求，了解哪些特征有助于TMT成功推动数字创新显得尤为重要（Volberda et al., 2021）。特别地，高管的个人特征对其角色的诠释和执行至关重要（Ahn et al., 2017; Chapman and Hewitt-Dundas, 2018; Hambrick and Mason, 1984）。基于概念和案例的研究表明，高管需要了解并支持数字创新工作（Chanias et al., 2019; Hanelt et al., 2021a; Volberda et al., 2021），进一步表明高管可能需要根据新出现的角色要求调节其个人特征。然而，有关提高TMT意识所需具体特征的经验证据仍然很少。此外，研究表明，考虑行为整合——即TMT中的信息交流、协作行为和决策参与程度（Hambrick, 2007; Simsek et al., 2005）——对于理解TMT的个体特征如何真正转化为企业成果非常重要（Buyl et al., 2011; Georgakakis et al., 2017; Heyden et al., 2013）。这些研究为TMT流程提供了宝贵的见解，但是在解释数字创新的特殊性方面却存在不足。

The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of TMT characteristics—i.e., the needed knowledge, roles, and structures in the TMT—on digital innovation. We draw on role theory to outline transitions in TMT role requirements triggered by digital innovation. We further combine this view with upper echelon theory to hypothesize on specific TMT characteristics needed for the TMT to act effectively under these emerging role requirements. We first predict that TMTs in industrial firms could particularly benefit from digital knowledge, which is understood as individual skills and experiences of TMT members in domains that relate to digital technologies (i.e., information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies, Bharadwaj et al., 2013). However, to do so, the TMT needs to integrate digital knowledge into TMT processes. Here, specific TMT roles, such as the chief executive officer (CEO) and chief digital officer (CDO), could be crucial. Specifically, we predict that the CEO, respectively the CDO, could establish the needed integrating mechanisms at their interfaces with other top managers. The hierarchical structure in the TMT could, however, present a decisive contextual factor as it is closely tied to behavioral expectations (Georgakakis et al., 2019). We argue that a strong hierarchical structure can create behavioral barriers for the integration processes taking place at the CEO-TMT, respectively CDO-TMT, interfaces. Fig. 1 summarizes our research framework. To test our predictions, we employ a set of firm fixed effects regressions to a longitudinal dataset of 305 US industrial firms in the period from 2005 to 2016.

Fig. 1. Research framework.

本文旨在探究TMT特征（即TMT所需的知识、角色和结构）对数字创新的影响。借鉴角色理论，我们概述了由数字创新引发的TMT角色要求的转变。进一步将这一观点与高阶梯队理论相结合，我们对TMT在这些新出现的角色要求下采取有效行动所需的具体TMT特征做出假设。首先，我们预测数字知识对工业企业的TMT非常有益，数字知识是指TMT成员在数字技术（即信息、计算、通信和连接技术，Bharadwaj et al., 2013）相关领域的个人技能和经验。然而，要做到这一点，TMT需要将数字知识融入TMT流程当中。在这方面，首席执行官（CEO）和首席数字官（CDO）等特定的TMT角色可能至关重要。具体来说，我们预测CEO和CDO可以在与其他高管的交互中建立所需的整合机制。然而，TMT中的层级结构可能是一个决定性的情境因素，因为它与TMT行为预期密切相关（Georgakakis et al., 2019）。我们认为，强层级结构会分别对CEO-TMT和CDO-TMT交互的整合过程造成行为障碍。图1概述了我们的研究框架。为了验证我们的预测，我们对2005年至2016年期间305家美国工业企业的纵向数据集进行一组企业固定效应回归。

图1 研究框架

Our study contributes to the TMT literature in three major ways. First, our study contributes to research on the TMT’s role and needed competencies for digital innovation (e.g., Kohli and Melville, 2019; Volberda et al., 2021) by providing large-scale empirical insights regarding the TMT knowledge and structure needed for digital innovation. Second, our work complements existing literature on TMT behavioral integration (e.g., Buyl et al., 2011; Georgakakis et al., 2017) by substantiating the crucial role of integrative CEOs for behavioral integration even in the context of digital innovation. We further highlight how other TMT roles than the CEO (i.e., the CDO) can be highly beneficial for behavioral integration in the context of digital innovation. Third, our study extends the emerging research on the CDO (e.g., Firk et al., 2021; Kunisch et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020) by informing the debate on the roles and effectiveness of CDOs. As such, our study has important practical implications for the composition and design of TMTs.

我们的研究主要从三个方面为TMT文献做出了贡献。首先，我们的研究通过对数字创新所需的TMT知识和结构提供大规模的实证洞察，为有关TMT在数字创新中的角色和所需能力的研究做出了贡献(e.g., Kohli and Melville, 2019; Volberda et al., 2021)。其次，我们的研究通过证实即使在数字创新背景下，整合型CEO在行为整合方面也能发挥关键作用，补充了有关TMT行为整合的现有文献（e.g., Buyl et al., 2011; Georgakakis et al., 2017）。我们进一步强调了CEO之外的其他TMT角色（即CDO）如何在数字创新背景下对行为整合产生积极影响。第三，我们的研究通过为关于CDO的角色和效能的讨论提供信息，扩展了有关CDO的新兴研究（e.g., Firk et al., 2021; Kunisch et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020）。综上，我们的研究对TMT的构成和设计具有重要的现实意义。

2. Background

2.背景

To meet the prevalent digitalization across societies (Tilson et al., 2010), unfolding as digitalized consumer demand and competition (Verhoef et al., 2021), firms are required to engage in digital innovation. In general, digital innovation can be defined as “the creation of (and consequent change in) market offerings, business processes, or models that result from the use of digital technology” (Nambisan et al., 2017, p.224). General Motors’ OnStar provides an example of such a digital innovation. OnStar builds on digital technologies, such as global positioning systems, mobile technology, entertainment and navigation systems, and on-board microprocessors, to embed novel digital services in cars, such as emergency services, roadside assistance, and in-vehicle apps, offering a very different driving experience (Yoo, 2010). However, despite this example, initiating and implementing digital innovation is typically extremely difficult for industrial firms as it requires fundamental shifts in their innovation trajectories and can relate to a strategic and organizational change that alters the firms’ value creation logics (Henfridsson and Lindgren, 2005; Henfridsson and Yoo, 2014; Singh et al., 2020). Hence, industrial firms are especially challenged when embracing digital innovation, with the literature indicating that two key challenges stand out.

为了满足全社会普遍的数字化需求（Tilson et al., 2010），满足数字化消费需求及竞争的需要（Verhoef et al., 2021），企业必须进行数字创新。一般而言，数字创新可定义为“利用数字技术创造（并随之改变）市场产品、 业务流程或模式”（Nambisan et al., 2017, p.224）。通用汽车公司的安吉星（OnStar）就是这样一个数字创新的例子。安吉星基于数字技术，包括全球定位系统、移动技术、娱乐和导航系统以及车载微处理器等，可在汽车中嵌入新颖的数字服务，如紧急服务、道路救援和车载应用程序，从而提供截然不同的驾驶体验（Yoo, 2010）。然而，尽管有这样的例子，启动和实施数字创新对工业企业来说通常是极其困难的，因为这需要从根本上改变企业的创新轨迹，并可能涉及改变企业价值创造逻辑的战略和组织变革（Henfridsson and Lindgren, 2005; Henfridsson and Yoo, 2014; Singh et al., 2020）。因此，工业企业在拥抱数字创新时尤其面临挑战，文献表明有两大挑战尤为突出。

First, many firms struggle to initiate digital innovation (Correani et al., 2020; Kane et al., 2015). Initiating digital innovation means that the firm has “to identify, assimilate, and apply valuable knowledge from inside and outside the firm regarding opportunities for digital innovation” (Kohli and Melville, 2019, p.206). This task is particularly challenging due to the fundamentally different traits of digital innovation. For example, “digital convergence” creates offerings that merge formerly separated customer experiences and industries (Lyytinen et al., 2016; Yoo et al., 2012, p.1399). Hence, to initiate digital innovation, organizational members of industrial firms need to adapt key elements of their previous innovation trajectory that are deeply rooted in the historical context of the firm such as cognitive beliefs about markets, processes, and products (Henfridsson and Yoo, 2014; Kaplan and Tripsas, 2008).

首先，许多企业在启动数字创新方面举步维艰（Correani et al., 2020; Kane et al., 2015）。启动数字创新意味着企业必须“识别、吸收和应用企业内外有关数字创新机会的宝贵知识”（Kohli and Melville, 2019, p.206）。由于数字创新具有根本不同的特性，这项任务格外具有挑战性。例如，“数字融合”创造的产品融合了以前相互分离的客户体验和行业（Lyytinen et al., 2016; Yoo et al., 2012, p.1399）。因此，要启动数字创新，工业企业的组织成员需要调整以往创新轨迹中深深植根于企业历史背景的关键要素，如对市场、流程和产品的认知观念（Henfridsson and Yoo, 2014; Kaplan and Tripsas, 2008）。

Second, many industrial firms struggle to implement digital innovation (Correani et al., 2020; Morgan, 2019). Specifically, embracing digital innovation requires developing and utilizing digital competencies even in traditional functional units (Yoo et al., 2010), which implies that industrial firms are required to establish links between existing functional units and digital units (Tumbas et al., 2018) and to overcome traditional structures (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Nambisan et al., 2017). However, overcoming these organizational boundaries can cause major difficulties since the underlying digital business logics largely differ in terms of governance structures, capabilities, collaboration modes and customer interaction (Svahn et al., 2017). Also at General Motors’ OnStar, major difficulties occurred when integrating various computing capabilities into existing car platforms (Henfridsson and Lindgren, 2005; Yoo, 2010). Consequently, industrial firms face the risk of creating decoupled digital entities that fail to achieve any business impact (Björkdahl, 2020; Morgan, 2019).

其次，许多工业企业在实施数字创新方面困难重重（Correani et al., 2020; Morgan, 2019）。具体来说，拥抱数字创新需要开发和利用数字化能力，即使是在传统的职能部门（Yoo et al., 2010），这意味着工业企业需要在现有职能部门和数字化部门之间建立联系（Tumbas et al., 2018）并克服传统的结构（Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Nambisan et al., 2017）。然而，由于底层数字业务逻辑在治理结构、能力、协作模式和客户互动方面存在很大差异（Svahn et al., 2017），克服这些组织界限可能会造成重大困难。通用汽车公司的安吉星（OnStar）在将各种计算能力集成到现有汽车平台时也遭遇了巨大挑战（Henfridsson and Lindgren, 2005; Yoo, 2010）。因此，工业企业面临着创建解耦的数字实体的风险，而这样的实体难以产生任何商业影响（Björkdahl, 2020; Morgan, 2019）。

Given these challenges in the initiation and implementation of digital innovation, recent literature suggests that the TMT plays a key role in the firm’s digital innovation endeavors (Chanias et al., 2019; El Sawy et al., 2016; Kohli and Melville, 2019). In particular, the TMT is required to be aware of digital innovation potentials and threats, not only to react to changes, but also to proactively initiate these changes by setting the formal context and supporting its implementation (Chanias et al., 2019; Hanelt et al., 2021a; Wrede et al., 2020). However, in these endeavors, relying on established TMT roles may be insufficient. Rather, an acknowledgment of the transitioning TMT role requirements may be required as well as an understanding of how top managers should act given these emerging role requirements (Firk et al., 2021; Volberda et al., 2021). In line with this, debates about existing TMT roles and competencies (Boyden, 2017; Furr et al., 2019; Klus and Müller, 2021) and even about new TMT roles, such as that of the CDO (Hughes, 2015; Rickards et al., 2015), are increasing. To make sense of these developments, we first draw on role theory to outline TMT role transitions triggered by digital innovation. Second, we combine this view with upper echelon assumptions to hypothesize on specific TMT characteristics that have become increasingly important in order to fulfill these emerging TMT roles for digital innovation.

鉴于在启动和实施数字创新方面存在的这些挑战，最近的文献表明，TMT在企业的数字创新努力中发挥着关键作用（Chanias et al., 2019; El Sawy et al., 2016; Kohli and Melville, 2019）。特别地，TMT需要了解数字创新的潜力和威胁，不仅要对变化做出反应，还要通过设置正式环境并支持其实施来主动启动这些转变（Chanias et al., 2019; Hanelt et al., 2021a; Wrede et al., 2020）。然而，在这些努力中，仅仅依靠TMT的既定角色可能是不够的。相反，可能需要承认转型中的TMT角色要求并了解高管在这些新出现的角色要求下应如何行动（Firk et al., 2021; Volberda et al., 2021）。与此相呼应的是，有关现有TMT角色和能力的争论（Boyden, 2017; Furr et al., 2019; Klus and Müller, 2021）甚至有关CDO等新TMT角色的争论（Hughes, 2015; Rickards et al., 2015）也在不断增加。为了理解这些发展，我们首先借鉴角色理论概述了由数字创新引发的TMT角色转变。其次，我们将这一观点与高阶假设相结合，对在履行这些新兴TMT数字创新角色方面变得日益重要的具体TMT特征做出假设。

3. Theory and hypotheses

3.理论与假设

Role theory concerns an important aspect of organizational life that is characteristic behavior patterns (Biddle, 1986). In general, role theory is used to describe and classify roles by presuming that people behave differently depending on their position in a social system (Biddle, 1986; Ren and Guo, 2011). Drawing on role theory can help to outline specific behavioral expectations for the members of the social system and uncover the foundational building blocks of their interactions, associations, and interdependencies (Georgakakis et al., 2019; Mathias and Williams, 2017). We focus on the TMT as a social subsystem of the organization and its roles, namely the CEO role and other TMT roles at or above the level of vice president (Carmeli and Halevi, 2009; Hambrick et al., 2015). These roles can be described by their identity—for example, the role’s nature, goals, tasks, and requirements—and by their boundaries, which describe the roles’ interface with the environment, such as with other top managers (Ashforth et al., 2000; Mathias and Williams, 2017).

角色理论涉及组织生活的一个重要方面，即行为模式特征（Biddle, 1986）。一般来说，角色理论假定人们根据其在社会系统中的地位而表现出不同的行为，被用于对角色进行描述和分类（Biddle, 1986; Ren and Guo, 2011）。借鉴角色理论有助于勾勒出社会系统成员的具体行为预期，并揭示其互动、关联和相互依存关系的基本组成（Georgakakis et al., 2019; Mathias and Williams, 2017）。我们聚焦于作为组织社会子系统的TMT及其角色上，即CEO角色和副总裁级别及以上的其他TMT角色（Carmeli and Halevi, 2009; Hambrick et al., 2015）。这些角色可以通过其身份（例如，角色的性质、目标、任务和要求）及其边界来描述、它描述了角色与环境（如与其他高管）之间的联系（Ashforth et al., 2000; Mathias and Williams, 2017）。

TMT roles are delimited by their scope and specificity of responsibility. For example, while CEOs have the final and overarching decision-making responsibility, other TMT roles have a divisional or functional responsibility, such as finance, marketing, operations, and specific product divisions (Carmeli and Halevi, 2009; Hambrick et al., 2015; Menz, 2012). From a traditional perspective, a clear divisional or functional role segmentation can benefit the TMT because each top manager can focus on his or her specific role identity (e.g., its goals, tasks) and thereby specialize in specific role requirements (Ashforth et al., 2000; Nicholson, 1984). Given these specialized and clearly delimited TMT roles, traditional TMT roles can be characterized by rather distinct role boundaries (Ashforth et al., 2000). Such clear role segmentation can benefit the firm at an aggregate level by supporting incremental improvements in terms of performing each role. Especially in the industrial context, this clear role segmentation has long been beneficial due to firms’ relatively stable situational demands and incremental innovation focus (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003).

TMT角色是由其职责范围和具体性限定的。例如，虽然CEO拥有最终和全面的其他TMT角色则承担部门或职能责任，如财务、营销、运营和特定产品部门（Carmeli and Halevi, 2009; Hambrick et al., 2015; Menz, 2012）。从传统的角度来看，明确的部门或职能角色细分对TMT有利，因为每位高管都能专注于自己的特定角色身份（如目标、任务），从而专注于特定的角色要求（Ashforth et al., 2000; Nicholson, 1984）。鉴于TMT角色的专业化和明确界限，传统的TMT角色可以有相当明显的角色界限(Ashforth et al., 2000)。这种明确的角色细分可以支持企业在履行每个角色方面的渐进式改进，从而在总体层面上使企业受益。特别是在工业背景下，由于企业相对稳定的情景需求和对渐进式创新的关注，这种明确的角色细分一直以来都是有益的（Hill and Rothaermel, 2003）。

However, roles are shaped by contextual factors and may change to match new situational demands (e.g., Reay et al., 2006). New situational demands can trigger transitions in underlying role identities, including self-concepts and the skills of those who take on the role, and they could lead to redefinitions of existing role boundaries (Nicholson, 1984). Especially when initiating and implementing digital innovation, sticking to traditional TMT role identities and boundaries may be disadvantageous for two reasons. First, the initiation of digital innovation is more difficult to functionalize. Since digital innovation can unfold in diverse ways, those in a TMT role must be able to comprehensively recognize and make sense of digital innovation potentials and threats (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Hanelt et al., 2021a). Case study evidence suggests that a broad range of TMT members is required to evaluate ideas for digital innovation (Chanias et al., 2019). As such, digital innovation-related responsibilities increasingly need to be perceived as part of the identity of each TMT role. Second, the nature of digital innovation implementation is inherently cross functional (Tumbas et al., 2018). For example, the TMT needs to engage in initiatives that emphasize the relevance of digital innovation, that involve other key stakeholders, and that lead to organizational structures being redesigned (Wrede et al., 2020). These tasks require TMT members to consider digital innovation as an interrelated and shared TMT responsibility (Chanias et al., 2019) and require that the rather distinct boundaries of traditional TMT roles should become increasingly permeable.

然而，角色是由环境因素塑造的，可能会根据新的情境需求而改变（e.g., Reay et al., 2006）。新的情境需求可能会引发基本角色身份的转变，包括承担角色者的自我概念和技能，并可能导致对现有角色边界的重新定义（Nicholson, 1984）。尤其是在启动和实施数字创新时，固守传统的TMT角色身份和界限可能会带来不利，原因有二。首先，数字创新的启动更难实现职能化。由于数字创新可能以多种方式展开，因此担任TMT角色的人员必须能够全面认识和理解数字创新的潜力和威胁（Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Hanelt et al., 2021a）。案例研究证据表明，需要广泛的TMT成员来评估数字创新理念（Chanias et al., 2019）。因此，与数字创新相关的责任越来越需要被视为每个TMT角色身份的一部分。其次，数字创新实施的本质是跨职能的（Tumbas et al., 2018）。例如，TMT需要参与强调数字创新相关性、涉及其他关键利益相关者以及导致组织结构重新设计的举措（Wrede et al., 2020）。这些任务要求TMT成员将数字创新视为一项相互关联的共同责任（Chanias et al., 2019），并要求传统的TMT角色界限变得日益模糊。

Individuals can respond to these emerging role requirements by either adjusting personal attributes, such as mindsets, values, skills, and behaviors, or by sticking to their existing individual attributes and trying to manipulate the environment to meet their existing attributes (Bogers et al., 2018; Nicholson, 1984). While the latter will result in sticking to traditional TMT roles and will potentially be disadvantageous for digital innovation endeavors, it is important to understand which characteristics in the TMT help to adjust to these emerging TMT role requirements.

个人可以通过调整心态、价值观、技能和行为等个人属性，或者坚持现有的个人属性并试图操纵环境以适应其现有属性（Bogers et al., 2018; Nicholson, 1984）来应对这些新出现的角色要求。随着后者会导致固守传统的TMT角色并有可能对数字创新的努力不利，了解TMT中的哪些特征有助于适应这些新兴的TMT角色要求变得非常重要。

3.1. TMT digital knowledge and digital innovation

3.1. TMT数字知识和数字创新

Each top manager brings his or her own characteristics to meet the specific requirements of his or her role in the TMT. One important characteristic is the cognitive base (such as knowledge or assumptions) of top managers (Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick and Mason, 1984). The cognitive base influences how top managers interpret situational demands, sense opportunities, and evaluate potential decision-making options (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Especially in complex and uncertain strategic situations that are not “objectively knowable but, rather, are merely interpretable,” individual cognitive bases can lead to different notions and evaluations (Hambrick, 2007, p.334; Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Mischel, 1977). Therefore, the individual knowledge of TMT members could be crucial in influencing how top managers make sense of and interpret their role in the TMT.

为了满足在TMT中角色的特定要求，每位高管都有各自的特征。其中一个重要特征是高管的认知基础（如知识或假设）（Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick and Mason, 1984)）。认知基础影响着高管如何解读形势需求、感知机遇和评估潜在的决策方案（Hambrick and Mason, 1984）。尤其是在“并非客观可知，而仅仅是可以解释的”复杂而不确定的战略情境中，个人的认知基础会导致不同的观念和评价（Hambrick, 2007, p.334; Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Mischel, 1977）。因此，TMT成员的个人知识对于影响高管如何理解和诠释他们在TMT中的角色至关重要。

Prior literature supports the knowledge of top managers as relevant in terms of how they interpret and perform their roles. For example, prior research indicates that the general and functionally diverse skills of top managers lead to increased innovation outcomes (Cust´odio et al., 2019; Haynes and Hillman, 2010; Heyden et al., 2017; Kor, 2006). However, digital knowledge—understood as skills and experiences in domains that relate to digital technologies (i.e., information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies, Bharadwaj et al., 2013)—has largely been neglected. Especially in the industrial context in which digital knowledge

presents skills outside the firm’s focal domain (Hanelt et al., 2021), digital knowledge has not had the greatest relevance in the TMT and has therefore only been studied to a limited extent. Moreover, there are legitimate concerns about whether digital knowledge as a specialized technological source of knowledge is actually needed at the firm’s top level. For example, digitally knowledgeable managers could fall into the trap of putting in isolated, technology-focused effort that is decoupled from the actual core business and, hence, they will be less effective in performing their role in favor of digital innovation (Furr et al., 2019).

先前的文献支持高管的知识与他们如何诠释和履行自己的角色相关。例如，先前的研究表明，高管的一般技能和职能多样化技能会带来更多的创新成果（Cust´odio et al., 2019; Haynes and Hillman, 2010; Heyden et al., 2017; Kor, 2006）。然而，数字知识——通常理解为与数字技术（即信息、计算、通信和连接技术，Bharadwaj et al., 2013）相关领域的技能和经验——在很大程度上被忽视了。尤其是在工业背景下，数字知识呈现的是企业重点领域之外的技能（Hanelt et al., 2021），在TMT领域的相关性并不高，因此对其的研究也相当有限。此外，数字知识作为一种专业化、技术化的知识来源，是否为公司高层所真正需要，也是一个值得关注的问题。例如，具有数字知识的管理者可能会跌入一个陷阱，即投入孤立的、以技术为重点但与实际的核心业务脱钩的努力，因此，他们在履行职责以支持数字创新方面的效果会大打折扣（Furr et al., 2019）

However, digital knowledge could also be particularly beneficial for TMT members to fulfill their emerging role requirements. First, TMT members with digital knowledge may be more likely to interpret their own role in favor of digital innovation. TMT members with digital knowledge can draw on their experiences in processing, interpreting, and evaluating information related to digital innovation (Chase and Simon, 1973; Furr et al., 2012; North et al., 2009). Consequently, TMT members with digital knowledge should be better able to recognize digital innovation opportunities and understand the features and logics underlying digital innovation (Wrede et al., 2020). Hence, these TMT members will be more likely to take on digital innovation-related responsibilities as part of their role. Second, top managers with digital knowledge could increasingly encourage and support other top managers to interpret their role in favor of digital innovation. Given that expert knowledge is attributed to more influence in decision-making processes (Buyl et al., 2014), top managers with digital knowledge could motivate other TMT members to engage in digital innovation endeavors. In sum, we suggest that digital knowledge in the TMT could be beneficial for TMT role interpretations in favor of digital innovation, which, in turn, should translate into increased firm digital innovation:

H1. TMT digital knowledge is positively associated with digital innovation.

然而，数字知识也可能特别有利于TMT成员履行其新的角色要求。首先，拥有数字知识的TMT成员更有可能从有利于数字创新的角度来诠释自己的角色。拥有数字知识的TMT成员可以利用他们在处理、解释和评估与数字创新相关的信息方面的经验（Chase and Simon, 1973; Furr et al., 2012; North et al., 2009）。因此，拥有数字知识的TMT成员应能更好地识别数字创新机会，理解数字创新的特点和逻辑（Wrede et al., 2020）。因此，这些TMT成员将更有可能承担与数字创新相关的责任并将其作为自己职责的一部分。其次，拥有数字知识的高管会越来越多地鼓励和支持其他高管从有利于数字创新的角度诠释自己的角色。鉴于专家知识在决策过程中具有更大的影响力（Buyl et al., 2014），拥有数字知识的高管可以激励其他TMT成员参与数字创新活动。总之，我们认为TMT中的数字知识可能有助于TMT进行有利于数字创新的角色诠释，而这反过来又会转化为企业数字创新的增加：

H1. TMT数字知识与数字创新正相关。

3.2. The role of TMT behavioral integration: Integrating interfaces and the hierarchical context

3.2. TMT行为整合的作用：整合交互与层级背景

However, even if digital knowledge is present in the TMT, it could still reside in its functional area due to the traditional view on the subordinated, supporting role of digital knowledge (Bharadwaj et al., 2013). Moreover, traditional role boundaries could hinder other top managers from perceiving digital innovation as a shared TMT responsibility, and this could even cause tensions due to diverging perspectives (Chanias et al., 2019) and conflicting goals (Svahn et al., 2017). For example, top managers could raise concerns regarding the prospects of digital innovation success, they could hide relevant information, or they could follow their own strategies and thereby put cross-functional efforts for digital innovation at risk (Chanias et al., 2019). Hence, the translation of TMT digital knowledge for digital innovation could especially depend on the behavioral integration in the TMT—the extent of information exchange, collaborative behavior, and decision-making participation (Carmeli and Halevi, 2009; Hambrick, 2007; Simsek et al., 2005). We focus on internal TMT interfaces—understood as the purposive contact points where top managers intersect and potentially transfer influence, information, and resources (Simsek et al., 2018)—to explore how the behavioral integration of TMT digital knowledge for digital innovation could be strengthened.

然而，传统观点认为数字知识处于从属和辅助地位，即使数字知识存在于TMT中，仍可能停留在其职能领域（Bharadwaj et al., 2013）。此外，传统的角色界限可能会阻碍其他高管将数字创新视为TMT的共同责任，甚至会因观点分歧（Chanias et al., 2019）和目标冲突（Svahn et al., 2017）而导致关系紧张。例如，高管可能会对数字创新的成功前景表示担忧，他们可能会隐藏相关信息，或者可能会遵循自己的战略从而使跨职能部门的数字创新工作面临风险（Chanias et al., 2019）。因此，TMT数字知识在数字创新中的转化尤其取决于TMT中的行为整合——信息交换、合作行为和决策参与的程度（Carmeli and Halevi, 2009; Hambrick, 2007; Simsek et al., 2005）。我们聚焦于TMT的内部交互——即高管交汇并可能转移影响力、信息和资源的目的性接触点（Simsek et al., 2018）——以探讨如何加强TMT数字知识的行为整合，促进数字创新。

3.2.1. TMT digital knowledge, integrative CEOs, and digital innovation

3.2.1. TMT数字知识、整合型CEO和数字创新

As the TMTs’ team leaders, CEOs can substantially shape the extent of integrating various top managers into TMT processes (Buyl et al., 2011; Chanias et al., 2019; Georgakakis et al., 2017). Especially when translating TMT digital knowledge into digital innovation, an integrative CEO could be crucial due to the high complexity of the acquisition, interpretation, and understanding of the relevant information, but also to mediate potential tensions caused by blurred traditional role boundaries (Chanias et al., 2019; Tumbas et al., 2018). Hence, we understand integrative CEOs as those CEOs who interpret their role in a way that fosters the involvement of top managers with digital knowledge in TMT processes, on the one hand, and that counteracts potential role conflicts in the TMT hindering the integration of TMT digital knowledge, on the other hand. Based on these mechanisms, we argue that two aspects help CEOs to act in an integrative way.

作为TMT的团队领导者，CEO可以在很大程度上影响不同高管融入TMT流程的程度（Buyl et al., 2011; Chanias et al., 2019; Georgakakis et al., 2017）。特别是在将TMT数字知识转化为数字创新时，由于获取、解释和理解相关信息的高度复杂性，整合型CEO可能至关重要，而且还能调解因传统角色界限模糊而导致的潜在紧张关系（Chanias et al., 2019; Tumbas et al., 2018）。因此，我们将“整合型CEO”理解为这样的CEO：他们一方面以一种促进拥有数字知识的高管参与TMT流程的方式来诠释自己的角色，另一方面又以一种抵消TMT中阻碍TMT数字知识整合的潜在角色冲突的方式来诠释自己的角色。基于这些机制，我们认为有两个方面可以帮助CEO以整合的方式行事。

First, CEOs need to be aware of the knowledge residing in the TMT. Shared work experiences between CEOs and TMT members could help CEOs to understand and trust other TMT members and their specific knowledge (e.g., Buyl et al., 2011; Dai et al., 2016). In turn, CEOs with shared work experiences could also be more aware of the top managers possessing digital knowledge, and hence they will be more likely to strengthen their involvement in relevant TMT processes. Second, CEOs should be able to mediate and handle potential conflicts in the TMT that could hinder the integration of TMT digital knowledge. Diverse functional experiences could help CEOs to build a dense understanding of different functional roles (Georgakakis et al., 2017). In contrast to specialized CEOs who may be inclined to follow opinions from their specialized area of expertise (Georgakakis et al., 2017; Meyer et al., 2015), CEOs with diverse functional experiences tend to be less “susceptible to functionally grounded biases and stereotypes” (Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2002; Buyl et al., 2011, p.155). Consequently, CEOs with diverse functional experiences should be more likely to overcome potential tensions that may hinder the integration of TMT digital knowledge. Taken together, we argue that CEOs who have shared and diverse work experiences are more likely to interpret their roles in an integrative way that supports the translation of TMT digital knowledge into firm digital innovation.

H2. The positive association between TMT digital knowledge and digital innovation is stronger under integrative CEOs (i.e., who have shared and diverse work experiences).

首先，CEO需要了解TMT中的数字知识。CEO与TMT成员之间的共同工作经历有助于CEO了解和信任其他TMT成员及其特定知识（e.g., Buyl et al., 2011; Dai et al., 2016）。反过来，拥有共同工作经验的CEO也会更加了解拥有数字知识的高管，从而更有可能加强其对相关TMT流程的参与。其次，CEO应该能够调解和处理TMT中可能阻碍TMT数字知识整合的潜在冲突。多样化的职能经验有助于CEO建立对不同职能角色的深刻理解（Georgakakis et al., 2017）。专业化的CEO可能倾向于遵循其专业领域的意见（Georgakakis et al., 2017; Meyer et al., 2015），相比之下，具有多元化职能经验的CEO往往“不太容易受到基于职能的偏见和刻板印象的影响”（Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2002; Buyl et al., 2011, p.155）。因此，拥有不同职能经验的CEO更有可能克服可能阻碍整合TMT数字知识的潜在矛盾。综上所述，我们认为拥有共同和多样化工作经验的CEO更有可能以整合的方式诠释自己的角色，从而支持将TMT数字知识转化为公司的数字创新。

H2. 在综合型CEO（即拥有共同和多样化工作经验的CEO）的领导下，TMT 数字知识与数字创新之间的正相关性会更强。

3.2.2. TMT digital knowledge, CDO existence and digital innovation

3.2.2. TMT数字知识、CDO（首席数字官）的存在与数字创新

Besides the CEO, who is often the focus of research on integrating other TMT members due to his or her powerful role, it is also possible to create a distinct TMT role dedicated to integrating other TMT members (Menz, 2012). Especially in the context of digital innovation, the emerging role of CDOs is highlighted for strengthening collaboration across functional boundaries (Haffke et al., 2016; Singh and Hess, 2017; Tumbas et al., 2017, 2018) and for linking and fostering discussions among intra-organizational key stakeholders, such as other top managers (Firk et al., 2021; Kunisch et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020).

CEO因其强大的角色往往成为整合其他TMT成员的研究重点，除CEO外，还可以创建一个专门整合其他TMT成员的独特TMT角色（Menz, 2012）。特别是在数字创新的背景下，新兴的CDO角色在加强跨职能边界的合作（Haffke et al., 2016; Singh and Hess, 2017; Tumbas et al., 2017, 2018）以及联系和促进组织内部关键利益相关者（如其他高管）之间的讨论方面发挥了重要作用（Firk et al., 2021; Kunisch et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020）。

Recent case study evidence allows for a more nuanced picture of the CDO’s role in interacting with other top managers. For example, CDOs work closely with other digital-affine top managers, such as the chief information officer (CIO) and chief technology officer (CTO), but also with more general top managers, such as the chief marketing officer (CMO) or divisional heads, to align on crucial requirements for digital innovation, such as technical conditions and customer demands (Haffke et al., 2016; Tumbas et al., 2018). Moreover, CDOs act as “bridge builders” to foster collaboration and establish links among these top managers and their activities (Firk et al., 2021; Tumbas et al., 2018). Complementing this view, the findings of Singh et al. (2020) indicate that CDOs combine different formal and informal activities to facilitate information exchange and collaboration within the TMT. For example, they lead digital steering committees and set up regular events as platforms for information exchange involving other top managers (Singh et al., 2020). Given these case study insights into these specific CDO activities, the CDO’s role in transcending organizational boundaries can be particularly valuable for the integration of TMT digital knowledge into TMT processes. In sum, we expect that the CDO–TMT interface could provide an important platform for integrating digital knowledge in favor of digital innovation:

H3. The positive association between TMT digital knowledge and digital innovation is stronger under the existence of a CDO.

最近的案例研究证据使我们对CDO在与其他高管互动中的作用有了更细致的了解。例如，CDO不仅要与首席信息官（CIO）和首席技术官（CTO）等其他数字部门高管密切合作，还要与首席营销官（CMO）或各部门负责人等更一般的高管合作，以便就技术条件和客户需求等数字创新的关键要求达成一致（Haffke et al., 2016; Tumbas et al., 2018）。此外，CDO还扮演着“桥梁搭建者”的角色，在这些高管及其活动之间促进合作并建立联系（Firk et al., 2021; Tumbas et al., 2018）。Singh等人（2020）对这一观点进行补充，其研究结果表明，CDO结合了不同的正式和非正式活动以促进TMT内部的信息交流与合作。例如，他们领导数字指导委员会并定期举办活动，为其他高管提供参与信息交流的平台（Singh et al., 2020）。鉴于这些案例研究对CDO具体活动的洞察，CDO在超越组织边界方面的作用对于将TMT数字知识整合到TMT流程中尤为重要。总之，我们预计CDO-TMT交互能为数字知识的整合提供一个重要平台，以促进数字创新：

H3. 在CDO存在的情况下，TMT数字知识与数字创新之间的正相关性更强。

3.2.3. The role of the hierarchical context in TMT interactional processes

3.2.3. 层级背景在TMT互动过程中的作用

The hierarchical structure in the TMT could present a decisive contextual factor for the integration mechanisms taking place at the CEO–TMT and CDO–TMT interfaces, as it is closely linked to role expectations (Georgakakis et al., 2019). As such, how other TMT members take part in mutual and collective interaction may be affected by the hierarchical structure in the TMT (Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick et al., 2015). The hierarchical structure is described by the administrative mechanisms (e.g., hierarchical levels, pay differences) arranged in the TMT, and it determines the degree of interdependence, or respectively, the disparity of top managers (Hambrick et al., 2015).

由于TMT中的层级结构与角色期望密切相关，它可能是CEO-TMT和CDO-TMT交互整合机制的决定性情境因素（Georgakakis et al., 2019）。因此，其他TMT中的层级结构可能会影响成员参与相互和集体互动的程度（Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick et al., 2015）。层级结构由TMT中安排的行政机制（如层级数、薪酬差异）来描述，它决定了高管之间的相互依赖程度或差距（Hambrick et al., 2015）。

We argue that a strong hierarchical structure makes it more difficult to effectively drive behavioral integration processes in the TMT. In particular, a higher degree of hierarchical disparity among top managers could establish behavioral barriers to the stimulation of integration processes. Accordingly, even if CEOs or CDOs bring top managers together, the top managers could resist engaging in intensified information exchange or collaborative behavior due to the expectations inherent in their structurally determined roles (Buyl et al., 2011). For example, in workshops or meetings set up by the CEO or CDO, top managers with digital knowledge could hold back on giving their opinions in order to avoid any violations of the roles that are structurally conditioned for them and other top managers. Especially in the context of digital innovation, where collaborative efforts may exceed the top managers’ traditional areas of responsibility (Svahn et al., 2017), CEOs or CDOs could face difficulties when trying to establish integration processes in the TMT under strong hierarchical structures. Thus, we expect that a strong hierarchical structure will negatively impact the effectiveness of CEOs and CDOs in integrating TMT digital knowledge for digital innovation:

H4. The moderating effects of an integrative CEO and the existence of a CDO are less pronounced in TMTs with a strong hierarchical structure.

我们认为，强大的层级结构会增加有效推动TMT行为整合过程的难度。特别是，高管之间的层级差异程度较高，可能会对激发整合进程造成行为障碍。因此，即使CEO或CDO将高管聚集在一起，高管也可能会因为结构决定的角色所固有的期望而抵制加强信息交流或合作行为（Buyl et al., 2011）。例如，在CEO或CDO组织的研讨会或会议上，拥有数字知识的高管可能会为了避免违反他们和其他高管的角色定位而缄口不言。特别是在数字创新的背景下，合作努力可能会超出高管的传统职责范围（Svahn et al., 2017），CEO或CDO在强大的层级结构下试图在TMT中建立整合流程时可能会面临困难。因此，我们预计强大的层级结构将对CEO和CDO整合TMT数字知识促进数字创新的有效性产生负面影响：

H4. 在层级结构较强的TMT中，整合型CEO和存在CDO的调节作用并不明显。

4.方法

样本

我们以2005年至2016年间的工业企业为纵向样本，考虑了在2005年至2014年间至少在标准普尔900指数（即标准普尔500 LargeCap或标准普尔400 MidCap）中上市过一次的工业企业的公司年份。工业企业的定义是那些主要以制造实物产品为主的行业中的企业。因此，与其他研究（e.g., Nadkarni and Chen, 2014; Rai et al., 2006）类似，我们遵循标准行业分类（SIC），只纳入属于制造业部门（即SIC 20-39）的企业。在这一初始样本中，我们剔除了（1）与“计算机和办公设备行业类别”相关的企业（357），因为他们熟悉数字技术；（2）观察到缺少财务数据或其他相关回归数据的企业；以及 (3) 在观察期内没有申请至少一项专利的企业（Cust´odio et al., 2019）。由此得出的样本包括305家工业企业和2413个企业年观测值。

因变量：数字创新

为了代表企业的数字创新成果，我们使用了企业的数字专利申请数据。专利活动通常有助于深入了解企业的技术优先次序（Griliches, 1990; OECD, 2009），同时也被用于数字创新的特定背景下（Hanelt et al., 2021）。在此背景下，实际证据也表明，专利申请是为数字企业建立市场进入壁垒的重要竞争手段（Parker et al., 2016）。尽管数字商业模式本身不能申请专利，因为专利申请需要属于可申请专利的主题（Marco et al., 2015; WIPO, 2019），但算法可以申请专利，因此可以用来保护数字商业模式的关键资源。同样在通用汽车公司的安吉星（OnStar）案例中，数字专利申请是开发过程中的重要基础，同时也确保了安吉星服务的持续成功，正如企业和商业媒体所指出的那样（General Motors, 2009, 2010; Reese, 2016）。鉴于这些论点（e.g., Svahn et al., 2017; Yoo et al., 2010），我们认为数字专利申请是工业背景下企业数字创新成果的重要代表。

为了将样本企业与专利数据中的申请人企业联系起来，我们使用了名称匹配算法。在此，我们考虑到专利可能是由不同的公司实体（即子公司）申请的（Belenzon and Berkovitz, 2010），而且随着时间的推移，公司可能会收购其他公司或剥离子公司。我们还进一步考虑了样本公司名称的缩写，并检查了样本公司内部发生的名称变更。在分析期间（Magerman et al., 2006）我们进一步执行了一个广泛的协调程序，通过清除专利申请人姓名中最常见的拼写错误和其他不规范之处（如法律形式的拼写、标点符号、字符不规范）来协调专利申请人姓名与样本公司名称（Magerman et al., 2006; Peeters et al., 2010）。随后，我们使用STATA中的matchit命令，通过算法对专利申请人名称和样本公司名称进行近似匹配（Raffo and Lhuillery, 2009）。由于该匹配算法基于近似匹配，公司名称可能会与其他公司名称重叠，因此我们最后会手动检查这些匹配是否恰当。

自变量：TMT数字知识

我们首先定义了哪些管理者组成了TMT。我们沿用了Hambrick等人（2015）的观点，他们将担任执行副总裁、高级副总裁的管理者视为TMT成员，在TMT只有5名或更少的成员时，则将副总裁视为TMT成员。由于这一定义并不一定包括重要的职能角色，如CIO，因此我们进一步纳入了拥有首席头衔的高管，但前提是头衔中没有在较低组织级别（即角色名称中的“部门”）开展工作的迹象。我们进一步排除了CEO和CDO，因为这些高管反映了我们模型中分离变量。

接下来，我们通过识别在之前的工作中拥有数字技术相关经验的TMT成员，建立TMT数字知识变量。具体来说，我们考虑那些在进入当前职位之前曾在与数字技术相关的职能岗位或行业工作过的高管（van Peteghem et al., 2019）。因此，我们搜索了他们的工作经历，并将包含“CIO”、“CTO”、“信息”、“计算机”、“软件”、“电子商务”、“IT”、“技术”、“数字”和“CDO”等术语的职位定义为与数字技术相关的职位。

最后，我们统计了在与数字技术相关的行业中拥有职位或至少三年工作经验的TMT成员、在与数字技术相关的行业中，以均值为中心建立我们的TMT数字知识变量。

调节变量：综合型CEO；CDO的存在；TMT层级结构

5.结论

H1、H2和H3均得到支持，H4仅得到部分支持。

（具体而言，若CDO存在，在扁平层级结构下，多一个拥有数字知识的高管，数字创新平均增加32.7%；而在强层级结构下，数字创新平均增加4.6%。这些结果部分支持了H4，表明TMT数字知识与CDO存在之间的交互效应取决于TMT的层级结构。）

阅读感想

本研究将角色理论与高阶梯队理论相结合，探析工业企业的TMT特征（即TMT所需的知识、角色和结构）对数字创新的影响。结果发现：（1）TMT数字知识与企业数字创新呈正相关；（2）在综合型CEO的领导下，TMT 数字知识与数字创新之间的正相关性会更强；（3）CDO存在的情况下，TMT数字知识与数字创新之间的正相关性会更强；（4）TMT中强大的层级结构可能会阻碍CDO发挥整合作用。

首先，研究采用企业的数字专利申请数据来代表企业的数字创新成果。专利活动通常有助于深入了解企业的技术优先次序，实际证据也表明专利申请是为数字企业建立市场进入壁垒的重要竞争手段。尽管数字商业模式本身不能申请专利，但算法可以申请专利，因此可以用来保护数字商业模式的关键资源。结合数字创新的定义，通过数字专利申请数据来衡量企业的数字创新成果具备合理性，加深了我对数字创新绩效测量方法的理解。

其次，根据角色理论，TMT的内部交互对工业企业利用好TMT数字知识推进数字创新的过程具有重要影响。本研究提出的整合型CEO与CDO的存在仅是冰山一角，在挖掘TMT数字知识对数字创新的影响机制过程中，可以考虑可能存在调节作用的其他TMT成员的内部交互作为调节变量。

此外，虽然本研究的研究框架在逻辑上可以自圆其说，但是TMT的层级结构在其中作为TMT的内部交互发挥整合作用的调节变量，导致研究模型的调节变量看起来过于复杂，而自变量对因变量的影响机制的解释相对不足。因此，可以考虑将本研究的研究框架进行优化并构建新的研究模型。