LEADERSHIP ASSIGNMENT PART 2

C

K a

S M G

a

A R A A

K O U C R E K L C

I

m i i e c i m i n t c d o c s t i (

2 c

Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3 (2018) 123–127

Journal of Innovation & Knowledge

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-innovation-and-knowledge

onceptual paper

urt Lewin’s change model: A critical review of the role of leadership nd employee involvement in organizational change

yed Talib Hussain ∗, Shen Lei, Tayyaba Akram, Muhammad Jamal Haider, Syed Hadi Hussain, uhammad Ali

lorious Sun School of Business and Management, Donghua University, Shanghai, China

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history: eceived 22 June 2016 ccepted 14 July 2016 vailable online 11 October 2016

eywords: rganizational change

a b s t r a c t

Change is crucial for organizations in growing, highly competitive business environments. Theories of change describe the effectiveness with which organizations are able to modify their strategies, processes, and structures. The action research model, the positive model, and Lewin’s change model indicate the stages of organizational change. This study examined the three stages of Lewin’s model: unfreezing, movement, and refreezing. Although this model establishes general steps, additional information must be considered to adapt these steps to specific situations. This article presents a critical review of change

nfreezing hange process efreezing mployee involvement nowledge sharing eadership style

theories for different stages of organizational change. In this critical review, change management offers a constructive framework for managing organizational change throughout different stages of the process. This review has theoretical and practical implications, which are discussed in this article. Immunity to change is also discussed.

© 2016 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access he CC

hange implementation article under t

ntroduction and research questions

The purpose of the study is to craft the relation between process odel and change, this relation describes the ways of implement-

ng change process by leader’s knowledge sharing, and this sharing dentifies the stages of change process, and these stages delin- ate the functional significance between organizational change and hange implementation. The organizational life has been made nevitable feature by global, technological and economic pace, and

any models of organizational change have acknowledged the nfluence of implicit dimensions at one stage or more stages of orga- izational change process (Burke, 2008; Wilkins & Dyer, 1988), and hese models imitate different granular levels affecting the pro- ess of organizational change, and each level of them identifies istinctive change implementation stages (By, 2005). A model of rganizational change in Kurt Lewin’s three steps change process ontext was introduced in this study; which reflects momentous tages in change implementation process. Kurt Lewin’s model is

he early fundamental planned change models explaining the striv- ng forces to maintain the status quo and pushing for change Lewin, 1947). To change the “quasi-stationary equilibrium” stage,

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: talib [email protected] (S.T. Hussain).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002 444-569X/© 2016 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. Published by Elsevier España reativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

one may increase the striving forces for change, or decrease the forces maintaining the status quo, or the combination of both forces for proactive and reactive organizational change through knowl- edge sharing of individual willingness with the help of stimulating change leadership style.

The Lewin’s model was used from an ethnographic study assumed for the investigation of the Lewin’s model for change development, mediates implementation and leadership initiatives for change in complex organizations. The focus of this research on (i) how Lewin’s change model granulates change, (ii) how knowl- edge sharing affects the change implementation process, (iii) how employees involve in change and willingness to change, and (iv) how leadership style affects the organizational change process in organization.

Model of organizational change

Process model

The organizational change explains the movement of an orga- nization from the known (current state) state to the unknown

(Desired future state) state. This is because the future of this change is uncertain and may concern the people’s worth, coping abili- ties, and competency, so the people of the organization do not support change unless they are convinced against the status quo

, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://

1 vation

( h t e p c t r p m a b & r c ( t s i ( s i &

p h c d

O

a s n a v f & p t r p ( c e c s b d h e c e a t i w c ( ( z i p s o

24 S.T. Hussain et al. / Journal of Inno

Cummings & Worley, 2003). The organization may have invested eavily for status quo; subsequently resisting change will take place o avoid uncertain future of organization. Consequently, the nec- ssary actions are to be taken to motivate employees. For this urpose, the study explores the loop of organizational change pro- ess through a series of events, which focuses on fundamental steps aken for implementation of change. The model has been catego- ized into loops of leadership, management and organization. This rocess is being initiated through Lewin’s (1947) three steps change odel denoting the step by step phases of unfreezing, changing

nd refreezing, so employees are being involved and instructed y leaders regarding the issues related to change process (Porras

Robertson, 1992). This subsequence process of change elabo- ates the varying outline sequence upon the essential stages of hange (Bate, Khan, & Pye, 2000). The reprisal in the process Burke 2008) and Whelan-Berry, Gordon, and Hinings (2003) underlined he importance of leadership before launching each phase at each tage of change. The leader’s ethicality may be one of the most mportant sources for change from employees as Durand and Calori 2006) stated the ethics of leadership in change process. Yet, this tudy does not examine explicitly the role of leadership ethics or mportance in spontaneous undergoing change process (Armenakis

Harris, 2009). In this study the organizational change will be referred as

lanned change. In context of process model of change, the culture as been recognized by theorists as moderator for organizational hange. As Burke (2008) identified the Burke-Litwin model from ifferent process theorists for the culture of organizational change.

rganizational change and Lewin’s model “unfreezing”

Change management defined by Moran and Brightman (2001) s ‘the process of continually renewing an organization’s direction, tructure, and capabilities to serve the ever changing needs of exter- al and internal customers’. Changing does not depend on size and ge but occurs thoroughly in all businesses. The world changes ery fast, so the organizations must have to be changed quickly or the development and surviving of the organization (Alvesson

Sveningsson, 2008). The Models and theories have been pro- osed for driving changes in organization for managers and leaders o monitor, evaluate and plan changes using structure for quick esponse to the internal or external environment and foresee the attern of change by individuals, products, technology and market Van Ossten, 2006). As stated by Glieck (1987) that organizational hange is a kind of chaos, so number of variables are changing, the nvironment changing, frequent change and resistant to change reate confluence of change process at the same time, that not only timulates difficulties in prediction but also make control impossi- le. However, the repeatedly research literature, consistently link ifferent classes of events in organizations for change. A new model as to be built to describe the causes of organizational change, xploring how does organization functions (i.e., a leads b), and ausation of model change deliberately. The internal and external nvironment persuades organizations for change. Pierce, Gardner, nd Dunham (2002) stated two kind of change in organization, reac- ive and proactive change. The reactive change takes place when nternal or external forces pressurize the organization for change

hile proactive change takes place when the organization itself oncludes about change to be desirable and Peters and Waterman 1982) developed cultural excellence model for change; Pettigrew 1973) developed processual approach as holistic view for organi- ation and environment, which emphasize that change is heavily

nfluence by power, culture and politics. Many theories have been ropose for change process but here in this study the Lewin’s three teps model for change have to be used for change process. As the rganization is in stage of change, the Kurt Lewin’s theory has been

& Knowledge 3 (2018) 123–127

applied for change process. According to the study of Lewin, that successful organizational change may be planned and this requires the system to be unfreezed. As explained in literature review, there are different reasons for change of organization and this will divert from its current position or status quo to a new direction. This stage will increase the group behaviors for change or to increase the leader’s pressure for change at higher level, and Lewin sug- gests that the forces involving for status quo will create minimum resistance and tension than the forces applying for change and this strategy will be more effective strategy for change.

Employee involvement in change and Lewin’s model “change process”

Employee involvement (EI) has been defined by Glew, Leary- Kelly, Griffin, and Van Fleet (1995) as “Employee involvement seeks to increase members’ input into decisions that affect organization performance and employee well being”. This can be explained in four (power, information, knowledge and skill, and rewards) ele- ments which promote the worker or employee involvement. For overcoming the resistance in organizational change, the employee involvement is the most oldest and effective strategy in formulat- ing the planning and implementing change. The participation will lead high quality change and prevail over the resistance in imple- menting stage (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). By doing this a variety of information and ideas may be generated, which may contribute the innovations effective and suitable in the situation, raise like- lihood, create member commitment in implementing change, and employee motivating and leading change effort in work (Cummings & Molloy, 1977). After getting out of the status quo, the leaders are required to support employee’s involvement for accelerat- ing the change in organization. The study of Pierce et al. (2002) states that; to stimulate process, the employees must have to be addressed about change. The leaders should educate, communi- cate, participate, involve, task support, provide emotional support and incentives, manipulate, co-optate and coerce the employees about change.

The study of Morgan and Zeffane (2003) states that during change process the leader’s transparency, reaffirms and enhance the trust of employee’s involvement in organizational change pro- cess regarding the discussion and meetings whenever discussed in organization, this allows employees for their opinions and achieve better sense of control (Morgan & Zeffane, 2003). The leaders hav- ing encouraging behavior will provide the support or suggestions in the process of change will reap advantages of task commitment and effectiveness (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003). The active role of employees in organizational change tends employees toward pos- itive feelings (Furst & Cable, 2008). This will enhance the employee acceptance for change process (Oreg, 2006) and also select changes during change process for encouraging the organizational support (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). This change process of Lewin second step will shift the behavior or attitude of department, organization, or individual to the next new level.

The employee’s involvement will be more effective if employees are empowered in authority and responsibility (Mathieu, Gilson, & Rubby, 2006). Here in every step of Lewin, the role of leadership involves as change agent for behavioral integration in tasks and social dimensions. The study of Srivastava, Bartol, and Locke (2006) states that, knowledge sharing means in team is sharing informa- tion, task relevant ideas and suggestions between different levels of management.

Knowledge sharing and Lewin’s model “change process”

The employees make sharing of knowledge about task assign- ments, customer service, performance outcomes and decisions

vation

m p m e l s e K p F i i a O a i a l i a i s a e c

e t t n a e w a m p t b t m s fi a i c e w t t

L

b c p a p t u c s t p ( (

S.T. Hussain et al. / Journal of Inno

aking, information flow from multilevel, making business lans, competitive conditions, new technology equipments, work ethods, ideas for organizational improvement, share skill and

xpertise, share development programs, contribute in solving prob- ems and business operation (Cummings & Worley, 2003). The tudy of Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002) states, that knowl- dge sharing is crucial among individuals of an organization. nowledge sharing in organizational resources is critical for com- etition, sustainability and dynamic economy (Hakanson, 1993; oss & Pedersen, 2002). So the organizations do not rely on train- ng, staffing and managing system only but also the knowledgeable ndividuals share beliefs, experiences, skills, competencies and bilities (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001; Brown & Duguid, 1991). ne thing should be noted that how to transfer the knowledge nd expertise from the knowledgeable experts to novices who are n need to know (Hind, Patterson, & Pfeffer, 2001). Bordia, Irmer, nd Abusah (2006) concluded that knowledge sharing at individual evel was studied in organization behavior, psychology (Lin, 2007), nformation systems (Wasko & Faraj, 2005) and strategic man- gement (Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Knowledge sharing is done n individual, group and organizational level of the organization, tarting at individual level; simultaneously expand to group level nd ends at the organizational level (Bock & Kim, 2002) and this is xplained by Uriarte (2008) as the framework of knowledge sharing onsisting of three levels as enablers, levers and foundation.

In the change process when employees contribute, the knowl- dge sharing stage identifies the kind of knowledge that generates he value of organization after that generating the mechanism for hat knowledge. The required knowledge is identified for orga- izational need which is getting from two sources of external s renting or consultancy from other companies or share knowl- dge by internal source in informal networks among employees ho have expertise (Wenger, 1999). Sharing knowledge is actu-

lly the organizational learning process, which concludes, what the embers or employees know about the organizational products,

rocesses, customers, and competitive environments of organiza- ion. This knowledge may be the explicit knowledge which can e easily transferred in documents, databases and manuals and he tacit knowledge is the member’s internal skills, intuitions and

emories (Polanyi, 1995). In the change process of Lewin’s three tep model, the knowledge is codified and personalized. In codi- cation phase the knowledge is stored which would be used by ppropriate members but in personalization phase the knowledge s being focused that how to transfer it from person to person. The odification of knowledge is called explicit knowledge which can be asily transferred and personalization is called the tacit knowledge hich is not easily transferable. The given below model explains

he whole cycle or process of organizational change by applying he Kurt Lewin’s three steps model (Fig. 1).

eadership and Lewin’s model “change process”

Leadership has been defined by Northouse (2004) as “a process y which an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve ommon goals”. The study of Cummings and Worley (2003) has resented five activities of key leadership in change process. The ctivities are of motivating change, creating a vision, developing olitical support, managing the transition and sustaining momen- um. The motivating change and creating a vision show to the nfreezing or current state of organization is being considered for hange, developing political support and managing the transition how the moving stage of change and sustaining momentum shows

he implementation and refreezing state of the change. In change rocess two factors play important role, the employee’s resistance Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005) and the openness to change Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Resistance to change probably effects the

& Knowledge 3 (2018) 123–127 125

change process which will lead to the negative outcomes (Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, & DiFonzo, 2004) while the openness of change of employees have to be focused during change process. The leadership in change context can be defined as “the process of diagnosing where the work group is now, and where it needs to be in the future, and formulating a strategy for getting there. Leadership also involves implementing change through develop- ing a base of influence with followers, motivating them to commit to and work hard in pursuit of change goals, and working with them to overcome obstacle to change” (Laura & Stephen, 2002).

Leadership type is vital in change process of organizational change. Transactional leaders are involved in rewards and punish- ments with workers to encourage the performance of organization (Bass, 1985) and transformational leaders are charismatic, inspira- tional, intellectual and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). This kind of leadership identifies the stakeholders for change pro- cess. The stakeholders (departmental managers, staff groups, and top level executives) can support change and make broad based support to maximize the risk of success and minimize the risk of resistance in change process by asking “who stands to gain or to lose from the change?” and this will build a relationship for creating the useful influence (Cummings & Worley, 2003). The stakehold- ers use three methods for motivation in change process, playing it straight, going around the formal system and using social networks (Greiner & Schein, 1988). The “playing it straight” explains the need of changes by giving information and how these changes can make benefit the particular stakeholders. The second part “social network” forms alliances and coalitions with key decision mak- ers, powerful individuals, groups, and with informal and formal contacts for gaining information. The third part “going around the formal system” is probably least used method involving circum- venting organizational procedures and structures.

Implementation phase and “refreezing” of Lewin’s model

The Kurt Lewin’s model (unfreezing, changing and refreezing) is widely accepted in psychology for implementing change. The implementation of change involves the current state of organiza- tion have to be changed into a desired state, but this will not occur quickly but simultaneously. Beckhard and Harris (1987) identified three activities for implementing the change; activity planning, commitment planning and change management structures. The activity planning makes a road map or path for organizational change, events and specific activities must be occurred for suc- cessful change. The specific activities involve the integrated change tasks, temporal orient and explicitly tie the tasks according to the organization’s change priorities and goals. The commitment planning identifies the persons and groups whose commitment is required or needed for organizational change for the purpose to for- mulate and gain their support. The people or groups are, political support, the stakeholder’s plans and their commitment for change in process of change. The change management structure identi- fies the ambiguous, direction, and structure for managing change process. Which includes resources to promote change, the current leadership structure, change consultants, interpersonal and politi- cal skills to initiate the change process (Beckhard & Harris, 1987). The study of Kanter (1983) describes the three stages as information (expertise, technical knowledge, and political support); resources (personnel, materials and funds), and support (legal issues, backing of support, and endorsement).

Conclusion

Many theories have been given by different researchers, like action research model (French, 1969); the positive model by

126 S.T. Hussain et al. / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3 (2018) 123–127

Change Process Unfreezing

Change processRefreezing

Organizational change

Impl ementation of change Leadership

Empl oyee Involve ment in change

Knowledge sha ring

Organizational change process showing di fferent stages

Change process

F : Note r

C ( f o g o t ( o o K t t e i

T

e p i m f 2 c i f l p u m

M

m a ( z k r i o o

ig. 1. Model of organizational change shows the Kurt Lewin’s three steps model elationship between variables.

ameron, Dutton, and Quinn (2003) and Lewin’s change model Lewin, 1947). The Lewin’s change model was used in this study or organizational change process. As Burnes (2004) identified the rganizational change as a feature of organizational life for strate- ic and operational level, so there is no doubt about the importance f change in organization, and it to be executed because, organiza- ion needs change. The study of Podsakoff, Mackenzie, and Bommer 1996) explores the active role of leadership style in organizational utcomes, employee satisfaction, and performance. In every step f the study; the leadership plays a role of a change agent in the urt Lewin’s model to unfreeze the organization. The transforma-

ional leadership style affects the organizational change process. In his type of leadership style, the leader coordinate with employ- es, share their knowledge, give opportunity in making decisions n organizational level.

heoretical implications

The findings of this study show that leadership style and mployee involvement in change is encouraging step for change rocess of organization. However, the effect of Kurt Lewin’s model

s indirect through separate phases in the process. The transfor- ational leadership style has been studies as the most important

actor for change process in prior studies (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 009). This paper associates positive impact of leadership style on hange process. This study illustrates the effect of leadership style n terms of employee involvement in change, motivating employee or change, share the knowledge at individual and organizational evel to make the loop of the change process. At each phase of the rocess model, the leaders and employees are considered to be one nit, and each phase will be shifted to the next step of the Kurt odel.

anagerial implications

Different organizations use different organizational change odel for stay in competition in the market. Like positive model,

ction research model, Lewin’s model, Kanter, Stein, and Jick 1992), Kotter’s model (1996) and Luecke model (2003) for organi- ational change. All of these studies showed that leadership is the ey factor for change process. The study indicates the dominant

ole of leadership, employee involvement and sharing knowledge n change process of Lewin’s model. The study recommends for rganization to elevate the awareness of change and phases for rganization. As we see the knowledge sharing is an important

: The arrows show different stages of Kurt Lewin’s three steps model and not the

catalyst for unfreezing stage and moving stage for the process. On the same time employee involvement is the main factor for shifting of organization from one phase to another, so all these factor are interrelated for the current change process.

Social implications

This study has significant social implications. The key factors that can encourage change in organization with swap of rewards and recognitions bring significant social implications for enhancing the organizational change process. This study has examined (1) the dominant role of leadership and employee involvement in change process necessary for bringing effective change in management, (2) the study explored a significant connection of knowledge sharing in change process with employees and leaders in implementing the change process, (3) the management should focus on the leadership style in change process, and finally (4) the review shows a frame- work of links among leadership to employees involvement, sharing knowledge and provides an insight to practitioners that how leader behavior relates to involvement and sharing knowledge in Lewin’s change model context.

References

Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2008). Changing organizational culture: Culture change. Work in progress. London, New York: Routledge.

Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for opera- tionalization. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6), 811–829.

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 127–142.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.

Bate, P., Khan, R., & Pye, A. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive approach to orga- nization structuring. Organization Science, 11, 197–211.

Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resource Management Journal, 15(2), 14–21.

Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty dur- ing organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 345–365.

Bordia, P., Irmer, B. E., & Abusah, D. (2006). Differences in sharing knowledge inter- personally and via databases: The role of evaluation apprehension and perceived benefits. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(3), 262–280.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of prac- tice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization

Science, 2(1), 40–57.

Burke, W. W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics (4th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

vation

B

C

C

C

D

F

F

F

G

G G

G H

H

H

K K

K L

L L

L

L

M

M

M

ing organizational change processes: Recommendations and implications from a multi-level analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 186–207.

Wilkins, A. L., & Dyer, W. G., Jr. (1988). Toward culturally sensitive theories of culture

S.T. Hussain et al. / Journal of Inno

y, R. T. (2005). Organizational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5, 369–380.

ameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foun- dations of a new discipline. New York: Berrett Kohier.

ummings, T., & Molloy, E. (1977). Improving productivity and the quality of work life. New York: Praeger.

ummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2003). Organization development and change (8th ed., pp. 1–694). California: Melissa S. Acuna.

urand, R., & Calori, R. (2006). Sameness, otherness? Enriching organizational change theories with philosophical considerations on the same and the other. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 93–114.

oss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs: The role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational. Journal of International Manage- ment, 8, 49–67.

rench, W. (1969). Organization development: Objectives, assumptions, and strate- gies. California Management Review, 12, 23–34.

urst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 453–463.

lew, D., Leary-Kelly, A., Griffin, R., & Van Fleet, D. (1995). Participation in organi- zations: A preview of the issues and proposed framework for future analysis. Journal of Management, 21(3), 395–421.

lieck, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking. ong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, J. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational

leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1–15.

reiner, & Schein. (1988). Power and organization development. akanson, H. (1993). In P. Beije, J. Groeneppen, & O. Nuys (Eds.), Networks as a mech-

anism to develop resources in networking in Dutch Industries. Leven Apeldorn: Granat.

iggins, C., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89–106.

ind, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by abstraction: The effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1232–1243.

anter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster. anter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change.

New York: The Free Press. otter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. aura, L. P., & Stephen, G. G. (2002). Leadership self efficacy and managers’ motivation

for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 215–235. ewin, K. (1947). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row. ewin’s change management model. (1947). Understanding the

three stages of change.. Available at: http://www.mindtools. com/pages/article/newPPM 94.htm. (Accessed on 14 April, 2016)

in, C. P. (2007). To share or not to share: Modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator. Personnel Review, 36(3), 457–475.

uecke, R. (2003). Managing change and transition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

athieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Rubby, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effective- ness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 97–108.

oran, J. W., & Brightman, B. K. (2001). Leading organizational change. Career Devel- opment International, 6(2), 111–118.

organ, D. E., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 55–75.

& Knowledge 3 (2018) 123–127 127

Northouse, P. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality context and resistance to organizational change. Euro- pean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73–103.

Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best run companies. London: Harper & Row.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London: Tavis- took.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., & Dunham, R. B. (2002). Management organiza- tional change and development. In Management and organizational behavior: An integrated perspective. pp. 627–657. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing (Chapter 18).

Podsakoff, G. R., Mackenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfac- tion, commitment, trust, sand organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259–298.

Polanyi, M. (1995). The tacit dimension (New York: Doubleday, 1966). In I. Nonaka, & H. Takeuchi (Eds.), The knowledge creating company: How Japanese foster cre- ativity and innovation for competitive advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.

Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development theory, practice, and research (2nd ed., pp. 719–822). Handbook of Industrial and organizational Psychology (Vol. 3) Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in manage- ment teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1239–1251.

Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 429–459.

Uriarte, f. A. J. (2008). Introduction to knowledge management. Jakarta, Indonesia: ASEAN, Foundation.

Van Ossten, E. B. (2006). International change theory at the organizational level: A case study. Journal of Management Development, 25, 707–717.

Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision making. University of Pitts- burgh Press.

Wanberg, R. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to change in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132–142.

Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. In J. Brown, & P. Duguid (Eds.), Towards a unified view of working, learning, and inno- vation. Organization Science (Vol. 2) (pp. 40–57). Cambridge, Eng., Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Whelan-Berry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C. R. (2003). Strengthen-

change. Academy of Management Review, 13, 522–533.