Abstract
Purpose: Previous studies on digital transformation (DT) have mainly concentrated on general organisational contexts, often neglecting the critical employee-level factors that are especially relevant in service enterprises. Consequently, the effect of DT on unethical pro-self-behaviours (UPSB) among frontline employees remains a subject of debate. Drawing on uncertainty management theory (UMT), we propose that DT leads to UPSB by increasing employees’ felt uncertainty (EFU), while employment security (ES) acts as an important boundary condition, reducing the impact of DT on EFU and the subsequent UPSB.
Design/methodology/approach: We conducted a multi-source, three-wave study involving service enterprises over several months to test our proposed model, utilising a sample of 267 employee–leader dyads.
Findings/results: Our findings indicate that DT is positively associated with UPSB through EFU. In addition, we discovered that the positive relationship between DT and UPSB via EFU is weakened by higher levels of ES.
Practical implications: Our study suggests that managers aiming to reduce UPSB should minimise employee uncertainty during the DT process by addressing work demands and providing digital skills training. Organisations undergoing DT should consider offering stronger ES to reduce the uncertainty these transformations bring to employees and further mitigate UPSB.
Originality/value: This research deepens the understanding of the micro-level aspects of DT and broadens the existing literature by incorporating a human-centred perspective, moving beyond the traditional focus on top-down management approaches.
Keywords: digital transformation; unethical pro-self-behaviours; employee felt uncertainty; employment security; uncertainty management theory.
Introduction
Employee misconduct has inflicted severe harm on organisations, exemplified by the scandals involving Barings Bank, Enron, Wells Fargo and Volkswagen (Veetikazhi et al., 2022). Consequently, scholarly interest in unethical employee behaviour has surged (Mawritz et al., 2024; Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008). A prevalent type of misconduct – unethical pro-self-behaviours (UPSB) – involves actions benefiting employees personally at the organisation’s expense (Veetikazhi et al., 2022). Prior research has identified various individual and organisational antecedents of UPSB, such as work overload (Ghosh, 2022), goal-contingent rewards (Mawritz et al., 2024) and value orientation (Chen et al., 2024). However, research examining the impact of enterprises’ digital transformation (DT) on UPSB remains scarce.
Digital transformation refers to the strategic use of digital technologies to fundamentally reshape organisational business models, processes, products, services and employment structures (Liu et al., 2024; Nasiri et al., 2020; Vial, 2019), thereby enabling organisations to sustain competitive advantages in the rapidly evolving digital economy (Lee et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2024). Digital transformation encompasses two primary dimensions: automation – where digital tools replace human labour, and augmentation – where employees collaborate closely with digital technologies to accomplish tasks (Matsunaga, 2021; Schallmo & Williams, 2018; Vial, 2019). Beyond strategic implications, these changes deeply impact employees by altering job characteristics or even eliminating positions. Particularly, automation and rigorous task monitoring increase employees’ stress and psychological strain, reduce job satisfaction and organisational commitment (Blanka et al., 2022), and demand greater technical adaptability because of novel human–computer interactions (Nadeem et al., 2024). Employees often perceive these changes, especially automation-related tasks, as direct threats to employment security (ES), thus significantly amplifying uncertainty regarding their employment status (Liu et al., 2024; Matsunaga, 2021; Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002).
According to uncertainty management theory (UMT; Lind & Van Den Bos, 2002), heightened uncertainty activates employees’ self-protection mechanisms, potentially resulting in pro-self-behaviours aimed at securing personal interests (Ma et al., 2023). Under certain circumstances, these behaviours may escalate into UPSB, exacerbating conflicts between individual and organisational interests. Employment security, reflecting employees’ subjective anticipation of job stability and continuity, has been identified as a potential factor capable of alleviating such uncertainty (Liu et al., 2019; Loi et al., 2011).
Despite existing DT research providing insights into employee behaviours, studies remain predominantly focused on macro-level or general organisational factors, overlooking crucial employee-level influences, especially in service enterprises (Klein et al., 2024; Matsunaga, 2021; Nadeem et al., 2024). Since DT’s success heavily relies on frontline employees (Blanka et al., 2022; Klein et al., 2024), neglecting these factors could create friction, impede DT progress and jeopardise long-term organisational development (Liu et al., 2024; Nadeem et al., 2024). Moreover, current understanding of the underlying mechanisms of DT’s impact on employee behaviours is incomplete. Existing studies present mixed findings: DT can enhance employee resilience, innovation, autonomy and engagement (positive school), but also contributes to technostress, job insecurity and decreased job satisfaction (negative school) (Battisti et al., 2022; Fleischer & Wanckel, 2023; Liu et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2022). However, the dialogue about DT’s specific impact on frontline employees’ UPSB is notably limited.
To address these gaps, this study employs UMT to explore how DT impacts UPSB by examining employee felt uncertainty (EFU) as a mediating mechanism and ES as a boundary condition. This study makes several contributions. Firstly, it employs UMT to investigate how DT predicts UPSB by exploring fundamental causes and mechanisms, emphasising the overlooked yet significant role of EFU, and enhancing our understanding of DT’s underlying mechanisms. Secondly, our research provides a human-centred perspective of DT, examining its influence on employee-level factors such as EFU and UPSB. This approach enriches the theoretical understanding of DT’s consequences in individual contexts within service enterprises. Thirdly, by identifying ES as a critical boundary condition, we shed new light on how ES can mitigate the uncertainty and UPSB triggered by DT, thereby offering a more comprehensive view of DT’s implications at the employee level. Overall, our study (1) answers recent calls for research into the outcomes of UPSB (Decrinis, 2025; Veetikazhi et al., 2022), (2) deepens understanding of how DT influences employee behaviour and (3) offers actionable recommendations for practitioners navigating DT.
Theoretical framework and hypotheses
Uncertainty management theory
We utilise UMT (Lind & Van Den Bos, 2002; Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002) as the foundational theoretical framework for elucidating our proposed conceptual model. Uncertainty refers to the extent of incomplete understanding of or predictability in situations (Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002). According to UMT, individuals encounter uncertainty when they perceive ‘the unpredictability of future events or the inconsistency between significant cognitions, experiences, or behaviours’ (Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002, p. 5). One of uncertainty’s primary sources is an individual’s perception of their own status (De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005), which is often seen as threatening. To alleviate this uncertainty and satisfy their fundamental need for certainty, individuals typically avoid risk-taking behaviours, instead adopting self-interested behaviours (Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002; Zheng et al., 2021).
We utilise UMT to explore individuals’ psychological and behavioural responses to DT, positing a positive relationship between DT and EFU. Digital transformation disrupts traditional work practices and human resource management (Marsh et al., 2022). Employees with digital skills benefit from the enhanced efficiency, greater opportunities and improved access to organisational resources that DT provides (Liu et al., 2024). However, those without such skills risk becoming marginalised (Chen et al., 2020). Digital transformation’s high demands and challenges often lead to employee uncertainty, prompting them to avoid risks and adopt self-interested behaviours to fulfil their need for certainty (Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002; Zheng et al., 2021). Moreover, UMT highlights security’s role as a boundary condition in how individuals manage their uncertainty (Lind & Van Den Bos, 2002; Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002). We offer a nuanced explanation of the indirect relationship between DT and UPSB by identifying ES as a key boundary condition. Specifically, when ES is high, DT is less likely to lead to high levels of felt uncertainty among frontline employees, resulting in fewer UPSBs. Our research provides insights into how ES can attenuate DT’s negative impacts on UPSB.
Digital transformation and employees’ felt uncertainty
Digital transformation, also known as the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), integrates digital, biological and physical systems, prompting substantial organisational changes through the application of digital technologies (Buck et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2024). Digital transformation profoundly alters business models and internal organisational structures, thereby influencing employees’ emotions and cognitive states (Battisti et al., 2022; Buck et al., 2023; Schallmo & Williams, 2018). Employees possessing digital skills may benefit from increased efficiency, expanded opportunities and improved access to organisational resources (Liu et al., 2024); however, those lacking these capabilities may face marginalisation and increased vulnerability (Chen et al., 2020).
Specifically, DT frequently involves intensified monitoring of employee activities and technology usage (Marsh et al., 2022), resulting in increased psychological stress, reduced job satisfaction and diminished organisational commitment (Nadeem et al., 2024). Moreover, employees must adapt to novel human–computer interfaces and complex digital systems, further exacerbating their cognitive demands (Blanka et al., 2022). Automation, in particular, is often perceived by employees as a direct threat to job security because of fears of layoffs or role redundancy, significantly increasing their employment-related uncertainty (Matsunaga, 2021; Liu et al., 2024; Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002). In addition, workplace hyperconnectivity driven by DT may blur work-life boundaries and cause overload, given the proliferation of digital channels and information influx (Marsh et al., 2022; Obushenkova et al., 2018).
According to UMT (Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002), such rapid and extensive workplace changes heighten employees’ feelings of uncertainty regarding their future employment and organisational status (Liu et al., 2024; Matsunaga, 2021). Uncertainty management theory suggests that employees’ emotional and cognitive responses to uncertainty critically shape their subsequent behaviours (Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002). Consequently, we hypothesise:
H1: Digital transformation is positively related to EFU.
The mediating role of employees’ felt uncertainty
Unethical pro-self-behaviours are self-serving behaviours that violate moral norms and ethical standards, prioritising personal gain over ethical principles and the well-being of others (Ghosh, 2022; Veetikazhi et al., 2022). Common examples of UPSB include exaggerating achievements, misappropriating resources or withholding negative information to benefit oneself (Ghosh, 2022; Veetikazhi et al., 2022; Vriend et al., 2020).
Research suggests that employees tend to perceive DT as significant and negative, as digital technologies are commonly believed to threaten job security through layoffs and job loss (e.g., Leo et al., 2023; Parker & Grote, 2022). Uncertainty arises from change and is closely tied to individuals’ emotional and behavioural responses (Downey & Slocum, 1975). Its negative impact primarily stems from the feelings of diminished control it generates (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2002). Generally, uncertainty is psychologically taxing and stressful as it challenges an individual’s self-perception as autonomous and competent (Matsunaga, 2021). Consequently, when individuals are overwhelmed by uncertainty, their motivation and commitment decrease (Liu et al., 2024). Research indicates that high levels of uncertainty are linked to emotional exhaustion and a perceived loss of professional and psychological resources (Nikolova et al., 2014). Ma et al. (2023) found that employees who feel uncertainty at work are more likely to engage in self-serving behaviours. According to UMT, the substantial demands and challenges associated with DT often induce feelings of uncertainty among employees (Lind & Van Den Bos, 2002). This uncertainty drives employees to evade risk and engage in self-interested behaviours aimed at securing a sense of certainty – behaviours that may contravene widely accepted moral standards (Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002; Zheng et al., 2021). Therefore, we propose:
H2: Employee felt uncertainty is positively related to UPSB.
According to UMT, perceived uncertainty is a critical psychological mechanism linking contextual changes to employees’ subsequent behaviours (Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002). As discussed previously, DT increases EFU (Hypothesis 1), and heightened EFU further promotes UPSB (Hypothesis 2). Therefore, EFU serves as a mediating mechanism through which DT indirectly influences UPSB. Thus, we propose:
H3: Digital transformation indirectly impacts UPSB through EFU.
The moderating role of employment security
Digital transformation often generates significant uncertainty for employees (Matsunaga, 2021). Employees undergoing DT frequently face conflicting pressures arising from contradictory demands, goals and interests, which can increase stress, burnout and job dissatisfaction (Klein et al., 2024; Marsh et al., 2022; Vial, 2019). According to UMT, organisational changes caused by DT heighten EFU regarding their job security and future organisational status (Liu et al., 2024; Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002).
Employment security is a psychological condition reflecting employees’ differing expectations about the stability and continuity of their future jobs within an organisation (Hur, 2022). This condition is frequently conceptualised as a mutual arrangement, whereby employees agree to accept managerial policies or practices that involve certain levels of risk in exchange for stable employment prospects (Liu et al., 2009). In addition, ES captures employees’ general perceptions of the stability of their positions in the organisational structure (Loi et al., 2011). It indicates an organisation’s long-term commitment towards its employees, fostering a supportive work environment that encourages employees to engage in behaviours beneficial to the organisation (Gong & Chang, 2008). Hai and Park (2024) also noted that frontline employees respond more positively and actively when they perceive high levels of ES, as opposed to situations where such perceptions are lacking. Consequently, enhancing perceptions of ES can effectively reduce the uncertainty employees experience and enable them to engage more fully, both physically and psychologically, in their organisational roles (Liu et al., 2019).
Drawing upon UMT’s assertion that perceived ES allows individuals to better cope with uncertainty (Van Den Bos & Lind, 2002), we propose that employee perceptions of ES can moderate the positive relationship between DT and EFU. Specifically, when employees experience uncertainty triggered by DT, they are likely to look for reassuring information from their organisational environment, with ES being a critical resource for managing such uncertainty (Lind & Van Den Bos, 2002). Thus, employees with higher perceptions of ES are expected to experience lower levels of felt uncertainty associated with DT. Therefore, we propose:
H4: Employment security moderates the relationship between DT and EFU such that the relationship is weaker when ES is higher (vs. lower).
Taken together, these arguments suggest a moderated mediation hypothesis, such that the level of ES moderates the indirect effect of EFU linking the relationship between DT and UPSB. We predict that when ES is high, DT is less likely to induce felt uncertainty among employees, leading to lower UPSB. Thus, we propose:
H5: Employment security moderates the indirect effects of DT on UPSB via EFU such that the indirect effect is weaker when ES is higher (vs. lower).
The conceptual framework of the study is shown in Figure 1.
Methodology
Sample and procedures
We recruited leader–employee dyads from a variety of enterprises in China through personal social networks. The targeted service industry enterprises (e.g., hotels and tourism companies) were those that had experienced DT. We introduced our purpose and procedures to 310 middle-level leaders in the targeted enterprises before data collection. They were asked to invite their immediate followers to participate in this study. All participants were assured that their participation was voluntary and their information would be kept anonymous and confidential.
To reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012), we conducted a three-wave survey. At Time 1, leaders were asked to complete the DT measure, while employees reported levels of ES and provided basic information. In this wave, 312 leaders and 302 employees completed the survey. One month later (Time 2), employees reported their levels of felt uncertainty. This time, 281 participants finished the survey. At Time 3 (1 month after Time 2), employees reported their UPSB during the past month. In this final wave, 267 employees who had completed both Time 1 and 2 surveys provided their responses. After matching the responses with codes from the three waves, we obtained a final sample of 267 participants.
Of the final sample, 107 employees were men (40.1%) and 160 were women (59.9%). Their average age was 32.37 years (standard deviation [SD] = 8.55), and average organisational tenure was 6.92 years (SD = 4.17). Their educational levels were high school or below (23.2%), 2-year college (19.5%), undergraduate degree (46.1%) and graduate degree (11.2%).
Measures
Unless otherwise indicated, all measures were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
Digital transformation (Time 1)
We assessed DT using five items developed by Nasiri et al. (2020) and adapted by Liu et al. (2024). Following Liu et al. (2024), leaders were asked to rate the DT items. Sample items were ‘In our company, we aim to digitalise everything that can be digitised’ and ‘In our company, we aim to create stronger networking between our different business processes through digital technologies’. The scale reflects a unidimensional construct focused on digital integration and usage, consistent with prior empirical applications (Nasiri et al., 2020). The scale demonstrated adequate reliability and validity in both studies (Liu et al., 2024; Nasiri et al., 2020). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.85.
Employment security (Time 1)
We measured ES using the five-item scale developed by Cooper et al. (2019). A sample item was ‘Things look secure for me in the future in this organisation’. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.93.
Employee felt uncertainty (Time 2)
We measured EFU using four items developed by Colquitt et al. (2012) and adapted by Sun et al. (2024). A sample item was ‘Many things at work currently seem unsettled’. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.94.
Unethical pro-self-behaviours (Time 3)
We measured UPSB with a six-item scale developed by Umphress et al. (2010) and adapted by Ghosh (2022). Following Vriend et al. (2020), Ghosh (2022) adapted the original scale to assess the extent to which employees engage in UPSB. The scale demonstrated good reliability and validity in both studies (Ghosh, 2022; Vriend et al., 2020). A sample item was ‘If it would benefit me, I would withhold negative information about myself from others’. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.95.
Control variables
Following previous studies (e.g., Ghosh, 2022; Liu et al., 2024; Mawritz et al., 2024), we included age, education and organisational tenure as control variables to minimise confounding effects.
Analytic strategy
Following previous research (e.g., Qin et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2020), we used the PROCESS macro (Model 4) in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 24.0 (Hayes, 2017) and performed bootstrapping with a sample size of 5000 to examine both direct and indirect effects. To test the moderating effect of ES on the relationship between DT and EFU, we conducted hierarchical regression analysis. The predictor and moderator were mean-centred to reduce multicollinearity. We then used the PROCESS macro (Model 7) to examine the moderated mediation hypothesis. The bootstrapping method was used to test the significance of the moderated mediation effects, with a sample size of 5000 and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the Hainan University International Business School Institutional Review Board (No. 20230630).
Results
Preliminary analyses
Before examining our hypotheses, we performed a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to test the discriminant validity of our measures. As shown in Table 1, the hypothesised four-factor model showed good fit to the data (χ2 = 298.73, [degrees of freedom] df = 164, χ2/df = 1.82; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.97, Tucker–Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.96, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.05, Standardised Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] = 0.05) and was a better model fit than alternative measurement models, supporting the distinctiveness of our measures. Furthermore, the composite reliability (CR) scores for our main constructs (i.e., 0.86 for DT; 0.93 for ES; 0.94 for EFU; 0.95 for UPSB) were greater than the 0.70 threshold. The average variance extracted (AVE) scores for each construct (i.e., 0.55 for DT; 0.72 for ES; 0.79 for EFU; 0.77 for UPSB) exceed the threshold of 0.50. These results support convergent validity (Hair et al., 2014). In addition, the square root of the AVE scores for each construct was greater than the correlation coefficients between the constructs, indicating good discriminant validity. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations of the study variables.
| TABLE 1: Results of confirmatory factor analyses (N = 267). |
| TABLE 2: Means, standard deviations and correlations (N = 267). |
Hypothesis testing
The results in Table 3 show that DT (β = 0.44, p < 0.001) is positively associated with EFU, supporting hypothesis 1. Employees’ felt uncertainty is also positively associated with UPSB (β = 0.16, p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 2. The indirect effect of DT on UPSB through EFU is also significant (indirect effect = 0.07; 95% CI [0.010, 0.139]), supporting Hypothesis 3.
| TABLE 3: Estimates and confidence intervals for the direct and indirect effects of digital transformation on unethical pro-self-behaviours. |
The results in Table 4 show that the interaction between DT and ES is negatively associated with EFU (β = −0.15, p < 0.05). As shown in Figure 2, DT had a stronger relationship with EFU when ES was low (β = 0.46, SE = 0.13, p < 0.001) than when it was high (β = 0.13, SE = 0.13, p > 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.
| TABLE 4: Moderating effect of employment security. |
 |
FIGURE 2: The interaction between digital transformation and employment security predicting employees’ felt uncertainty. |
|
Table 5 displays the results of testing the moderated mediating effect of ES. The conditional indirect effect of DT on UPSB through EFU was stronger when ES was low (−1 SD) (indirect effect = 0.10; CI [0.016, 0.210]) and weaker when ES was high (+1 SD) (indirect effect = 0.04; 95% CI [0.003, 0.103]). The 95% CI for the index of moderated mediation did not contain zero ([−0.065, −0.001]). Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was supported.
| TABLE 5: Conditional indirect effect of digital transformation on unethical pro-self-behaviours. |
Discussion
Digital transformation fundamentally reshapes organisations by altering business models, technologies, work processes, products, services and staffing structures, significantly affecting employees. These organisational changes often amplify employees’ feelings of uncertainty about their job security, triggering self-protective responses that frequently manifest as pro-self-behaviours (Ma et al., 2023). However, current research on the impacts of DT at the employee level – particularly concerning ethical behaviours – remains limited, hindering the development of relevant theoretical frameworks and practical guidance. To address this gap, we integrated UMT with ethics literature to construct and empirically test a moderated mediation model, exploring why, how and under what conditions DT leads employees to engage in UPSB.
According to UMT, employees perceive heightened uncertainty when workplace changes involve irreversible, large-scale or rapid transformations affecting their roles or interpersonal relationships. Such felt uncertainty signals unclear organisational boundaries, ambiguous rules and diminished identification with organisational goals, prompting employees to focus more on their self-interests. Specifically, uncertain employees often fear that rewards for their performance and career opportunities will be compromised by uncontrollable factors unless they proactively secure their personal interests (Duan et al., 2021). Thus, EFU mediates the relationship between DT and UPSB, highlighting the indirect pathway through which DT may induce unethical behaviours. This theoretical explanation further deepens our understanding of the psychological mechanisms linking DT with employee ethical outcomes.
Further, we identify ES as a critical boundary condition moderating the indirect effect of DT on UPSB through EFU. Specifically, ES weakens the positive relationship between DT and EFU, such that under high ES conditions, employees are less likely to experience heightened uncertainty because of DT, thereby reducing their engagement in UPSB. By clarifying EFU as the central mediating mechanism and highlighting ES as a crucial moderator, our research advances theoretical understanding and provides practical implications for effectively managing DT’s impact on employee behaviour.
Theoretical implications
This study provides several theoretical contributions. Firstly, previous research on DT has primarily examined its impacts at the macro or organisational levels, often overlooking critical employee-level outcomes (Blanka et al., 2022; Klein et al., 2024; Nadeem et al., 2024). However, frontline employees play an essential role in determining the success of DT initiatives, and neglecting their experiences can impede the effectiveness of DT and undermine organisational sustainability (Liu et al., 2024; Nadeem et al., 2024). To address this gap, our research incorporates employee-centred perspectives into the DT literature. Drawing on UMT (Lind & Van Den Bos, 2002), we theoretically explain and empirically test how and when DT influences employees’ UPSB within the service sector. Thus, our study extends existing knowledge by revealing new ethical implications associated with DT at the individual level.
Secondly, this study deepens the understanding of DT’s influence by identifying EFU as a key mediating mechanism. Prior research has applied various theoretical lenses (e.g., goal-shielding theory, job demands-control theory, social cognitive theory, construal-level theory) to investigate the antecedents of UPSB, but the mediating role of EFU has received limited scholarly attention. Our moderated mediation model indicates that DT-induced organisational changes – such as rapid technology adoption, shifts in job characteristics and potential role redundancies – heighten employees’ perceived employment uncertainty (Liu et al., 2024; Marsh et al., 2022). According to UMT, this heightened uncertainty activates employees’ self-protective mechanisms, subsequently increasing their propensity to engage in UPSB as a means of safeguarding personal interests (Babalola et al., 2023). By highlighting EFU as the mediating pathway, our findings enrich theoretical frameworks regarding the individual-level behavioural consequences of DT.
Finally, our study identifies ES as a critical boundary condition moderating the relationship between DT and EFU. Although DT can promote employee innovation (Hu & Hui, 2023; Jiang & Yu, 2022; Jin et al., 2025), our findings illustrate that DT simultaneously increases EFU, which in turn promotes UPSB. However, our empirical analysis demonstrates that when employees perceive high ES, the adverse effect of DT on EFU is reduced, consequently diminishing the likelihood of employees engaging in UPSB. Nevertheless, statistical evidence suggests that ES alone does not fully mitigate DT’s negative outcomes. Therefore, this study emphasises the importance of exploring additional boundary conditions to comprehensively understand the complex effects of DT. Our findings thus advance theoretical discussions by highlighting the conditional nature of DT’s consequences and underscore the value of identifying more robust moderators capable of buffering DT’s potentially harmful impacts on employee behaviour.
Practical implications
This study has several practical implications. While DT offers significant benefits, it can also lead to suboptimal outcomes (Klein et al., 2024). Our finding that DT leads to heightened UPSB through EFU highlights some additional dangers that organisations are exposed to by DT. During DT, induced uncertainty can lead employees to avoid risks and engage in self-interested behaviours to secure certainty; such behaviours may violate moral standards (Liu et al., 2024; Zheng et al., 2021). Thus, our study suggests that managers who aim to reduce UPSB should implement strategies to minimise employee feelings of uncertainty during the DT process. Service organisations and managers should prioritise facilitating employee acceptance of DT by addressing work demands and providing training to enhance their digital skills. Furthermore, offering clear communications about DT’s objectives and strategies can help employees better understand and adapt to the changes (Liu et al., 2024), thereby reducing negative impacts and minimising feelings of uncertainty.
Because DT can lead to suboptimal outcomes, completely eliminating employee uncertainty may not be feasible. Our findings suggest that organisations can take additional measures to reduce the likelihood that DT will lead to suboptimal outcomes. These include enhancing ES, fostering a supportive work environment and ensuring that sufficient organisational resources are provided. As Hai and Park (2024) highlighted, when employees feel valued and supported through ES, their responses tend to be more positive than when these feelings are lacking. This sense of security reduces uncertainty and fosters greater engagement, both physically and mentally, in their work (Liu et al., 2019). Thus, organisations undergoing DT could consider offering stronger ES to reduce the uncertainty that such transformations bring to employees and further mitigate UPSB.
Limitations and future research directions
This study also has some limitations. Firstly, by collecting three-wave, multi-source data for our variables, we have mitigated concerns regarding common method variance, which increases the generalisability of our findings (Babakola et al., 2023; Podsakoff et al., 2012). Nevertheless, our research design does not allow us to determine causality. Thus, future studies should employ longitudinal or experimental designs to explore the causal relationships among the variables considered.
Secondly, while the results show statistically significant relationships between DT, EFU and UPSB, the effect sizes are modest. This suggests that while DT may contribute to UPSB through enhanced EFU, it is likely one of multiple factors influencing such behaviours. Small effects are common in field studies involving complex human behaviours, especially in multi-wave, multi-source designs in organisational research (Bosco et al., 2015). These findings nonetheless offer theoretically meaningful insights into how even subtle increases in perceived uncertainty during digital transitions can shape employees’ unethical conduct.
Thirdly, we utilised UMT to posit that EFU serves as a crucial mechanism that explains the link between DT and UPSB. While we acknowledge the influence of work engagement, other potential mediators should also be considered. Digital transformation comprises two steps: automation (i.e., digitisation), where digital technologies or machines take over human labour, and augmentation (i.e., digitalisation), where humans collaborate closely with advanced technologies to perform tasks (Schallmo & Williams, 2018; Vial, 2019). Therefore, future research should consider mechanisms related to the DT process, such as automation and augmentation.
Fourthly, the study’s focus on a single cultural context (i.e., China) should be acknowledged as a significant limitation. We propose that the relationships identified in this study may differ across cultural contexts, as employee behaviours can be greatly influenced by their cultural traits (Klein et al., 2024; Xu et al., 2023). Future research should explore diverse cultural contexts and replicate the study in high-individualism cultures to enhance the generalisability of the results.
Conclusion
Digital transformation fundamentally reshapes organisations – altering business models, technologies, work processes, products, services and staffing structures – and in doing so heightens employees’ uncertainty about their job security. According to UMT, such perceived uncertainty activates self-protective mechanisms, which often manifest as pro-self-behaviours (Ma et al., 2023). Despite this, research on DT’s effects at the employee level – especially regarding ethical behaviour – remains sparse, limiting both theoretical development and practical guidance. To fill this gap, we integrate UMT and behavioural ethics to develop and test a moderated mediation model explaining when and how DT leads to employees’ UPSB. We conducted a three-wave, multi-source field study with 267 employee–leader dyads, finding that EFU is the key mechanism through which DT indirectly drives UPSB.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
Y.F. and X.L. conducted the writing and methodology of the study. S.M. did the investigation and gathered the resources. S.H. supervised and aided the write-up process.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available because of reasons of sensitivity and participant confidentiality. Data from the corresponding author S.M., can be made available upon reasonable request, as all data collected during the study were securely stored and used solely for academic purposes. No identifiable information about the participants was or will be disclosed, ensuring their privacy and compliance with data protection regulations.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. The article does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Babalola, M.T., Qu, Y., Ali, M., Pathki, C.S.R., Usman, M., & Muchiri, M. (2023). An uncertainty management perspective on the antecedents of leader self-serving behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(8), 1164–1182. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2711
Battisti, E., Alfiero, S., & Leonidou, E. (2022). Remote working and digital transformation during the COVID-19 pandemic: Economic–financial impacts and psychological drivers for employees. Journal of Business Research, 150, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.010
Blanka, C., Krumay, B., & Rueckel, D. (2022). The interplay of digital transformation and employee competency: A design science approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 178, 121575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121575
Bosco, F.A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J.G., & Pierce, C.A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038047
Buck, C., Clarke, J., De Oliveira, R.T., Desouza, K.C., & Maroufkhani, P. (2023). Digital transformation in asset-intensive organisations: The light and the dark side. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(2), 100335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100335
Chen, C.C., Sheldon, O.J., Chen, M., & Reynolds, S.J. (2024). For the sake of the ingroup: The double-edged effects of collectivism on workplace Unethical behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 34(4), 570–604. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2023.14
Chen, D.M., Wang, L.Z., & Chen, A.N. (2020). Digitalization and strategic management theory: Review, challenges and prospects. Journal of Management World, 36(5), 220–236
Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A., Piccolo, R.F., Zapata, C.P., & Rich, B.L. (2012). Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025208
Cooper, B., Wang, J., Bartram, T., & Cooke, F. L. (2019). Well-being-oriented human resource management practices and employee performance in the Chinese banking sector: The role of social climate and resilience. Human Resource Management, 58(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21934
De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.010
Decrinis, L. (2025). Curbing unethical behavior at work: What role for nudging?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 39(2), 312–329. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2024.0013
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2002). Corporate rumor activity, belief and accuracy. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00107-8
Downey, H.K., & Slocum, J.W. (1975). Uncertainty: Measures, research, and sources of variation. Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 562–578. https://doi.org/10.2307/255685
Duan, J., Xu, Y., Wang, X., Wu, C.H., & Wang, Y. (2021). Voice for oneself: Self-interested voice and its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12334
Fleischer, J., & Wanckel, C. (2023). Job satisfaction and the digital transformation of the public sector: The mediating role of job autonomy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 44(3), 0734371X2211484.
Ghosh, K. (2022). When and how employees cross the line for the job in hospitality firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 103, 103187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103187
Gong, Y., & Chang, S. (2008). Institutional antecedents and performance consequences of employment security and career advancement practices: Evidence from the People’s Republic of China. Human Resource Management, 47(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20196
Hai, S., & Park, I.J. (2024). How can promote hotel employees’ performances? Relative importance of high-performance HR practices and the moderating role of empowering leadership. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 119, 103706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103706
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Hayes, A.F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hu, X., & Hui, J. (2023). Cross-level influence mechanism of digital transformation on employees’ innovative behaviour – Based on mediation effect of employee–customer involvement and moderation effect of corporate reputation. R&D Management, 35(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2024-0613
Hur, H. (2022). Job security matters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between job security and work attitudes. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(5), 925–955. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.3
Jiang, S.H.Y., & Yu, Z.H.Y. (2022). Research on the impact path of digital transformation on employee bootleg innovation based on the conservation of resource theory. Science and Technology Management Research, 42(18), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-7695.2022.18.016
Jin, H., Su, Y., Wang, Z., & Zhou, X. (2025), Cross-level influence mechanisms of digital transformation on employee innovation behaviour from a multidimensional capital perspective. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2024-0613
Klein, S.P., Spieth, P., & Söllner, M. (2024). Employee acceptance of digital transformation strategies: A paradox perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 41(5), 999–1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12722
Lee, J., Shin, H., & Kang, J. (2024). Investigating the managerial effects of workcations (work (plus) vacations) on digital nomad employees: Workcation satisfaction, work engagement, innovation behavior, intention to stay, and revisit intention. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 59, 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2024.05.003
Leo, W.W.C., Laud, G., & Chou, C.Y. (2023). Digital transformation for crisis preparedness service employees’ perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 37(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-07-2021-0249
Lind, E.A., & Van Den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24006-X
Liu, P., Zhang, F., Liu, Y., Liu, S., & Huo, C. (2024). Enabling or burdening? – The double-edged sword impact of digital transformation on employee resilience. Computers in Human Behavior, 157, 108220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108220
Liu, W., Guthrie, J.P., Flood, P.C., & MacCurtain, S. (2009). Unions and the adoption of high performance work systems: Does employment security play a role?. ILR Review, 63(1), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979390906300106
Liu, X., Huang, Q., Wang, H., & Liu, S. (2019). Employment security and employee organizational citizenship behavior: does an ‘iron rice bowl’ make a difference?. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(13), 2077–2096. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1381859
Loi, R., Ngo, H.Y., Zhang, L., & Lau, V.P. (2011). The interaction between leader–member exchange and perceived job security in predicting employee altruism and work performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X510468
Ma, C., Shang, S., Zhao, H., Zhong, J., & Chan, X.W. (2023). Speaking for organization or self? Investigating the effects of perceived overqualification on pro-organizational and self-interested voice. Journal of Business Research, 168, 114215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114215
Marsh, E., Vallejos, E.P., & Spence, A. (2022). The digital workplace and its dark side: An integrative review. Computers in Human Behavior, 128, a107118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107118
Matsunaga, M. (2021). Testing the theory of communication and uncertainty management in the context of digital transformation with transformational leadership as a moderator. International Journal of Business Communication, 62(3), 583–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211023966
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(5), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5
Mawritz, M.B., Farro, A.C., Kim, J., Greenbaum, R.L., Wang, C.S., & Bonner, J.M. (2024). Bottom-line mentality from a goal-shielding perspective: Does bottom-line mentality explain the link between rewards and pro-self unethical behavior?. Human Relations, 77(4), 505–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221138187
Nadeem, K., Wong, S.I., Za, S., & Venditti, M. (2024). Digital transformation and industry 4.0 employees: Empirical evidence from top digital nations. Technology in Society, 76, 102434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102434
Nasiri, M., Ukko, J., Saunila, M., & Rantala, T. (2020). Managing the digital supply chain: The role of smart technologies. Technovation, 96, 102121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102121
Nikolova, I., Van Ruysseveldt, J., De Witte, H., & Syroit, J. (2014). Well-being in times of task restructuring: The buffering potential of workplace learning. Work and Stress, 28(3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.929601
Obushenkova, E., Plester, B., & Haworth, N. (2018). Manager-employee psychological contracts: Enter the smartphone. Employee Relations, 40(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2017-0040
Parker, S.K., & Grote, G. (2022). Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Applied Psychology, 71(4), 1171–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12241
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Qin, X., Yam, K.C., Chen, C., Li, W., & Dong, X. (2021). Talking about COVID-19 is positively associated with team cultural tightness: Implications for team deviance and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(4), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000918
Schallmo, D.R.A., & Williams, C.A. (2018). Digital transformation now!. SpringerBriefs in Business.
Sun, U.Y., Park, H., & Yun, S. (2024). Ethically treated yet closely monitored: Ethical leadership, leaders’ close monitoring, employees’ uncertainty, and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(5), 702–719. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2760
Tang, G., Chen, Y., van Knippenberg, D., & Yu, B. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of empowering leadership: Leader power distance, leader perception of team capability, and team innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2446
Tenbrunsel, A.E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Academy of management annals, 2(1), 545–607. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211677
Umphress, E.E., Bingham, J.B., & Mitchell, M.S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019214
Van Den Bos, K., & Lind, E.A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 34, pp. 1–60). Academic Press.
Veetikazhi, R., Kamalanabhan, T.J., Malhotra, P., Arora, R., & Mueller, A. (2022). Unethical employee behaviour: A review and typology. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33, 1976–2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1810738
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Vriend, T., Said, R., Janssen, O., & Jordan, J. (2020). The dark side of relational leadership: Positive and negative reciprocity as fundamental drivers of follower’s intended pro-leader and pro-self unethical behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1473. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01473
Wu, J., Gong, X., & Liu, Y. (2022). Research on the influence mechanism of employees’ innovation behavior in the context of digital transformation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1090961. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1090961
Xu, X., Jiang, L., Probst, T.M., Shoss, M.K., & Jalil, D. (2023). How national culture shapes employee reactions to job insecurity: The role of national corruption. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 32(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2022.2090344
Zheng, Y., Graham, L., Farh, J.L., & Huang, X. (2021). The impact of authoritarian leadership on ethical voice: A moderated mediation model of felt uncertainty and leader benevolence. Journal of Business Ethics, 170, 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04261-1
|
Email this article 
Hide
Show all
