1

Table of Contents

S/N Content Page

1 Introduction................................................................. 3

...

2 Findings and

Discussion................................................................. 4

Maintaining Employee

Engagement............................................................ 4

Managing

Change................................................................. 5

Change

Drivers................................................................. 6

Mitigating

Risks................................................................. 7

Recommendations......................................................... 8

3 Communicate Inspiring Vision and Strategic

Objectives.............................................................. 8

Motivate Change

Adoption................................................................. 9

Foster Employee

Engagement............................................................. 10

Conclusion................................................................. 11

4 References............................................................... 12

Change management for a non-governmental organization preparing for a large-scale structural

change.

Introduction

An outstanding combination of change factors, including digitalization, social change, economic

instability, and many others, influences the modern business world. The COVID-19 pandemic has

speeded the pace of change through the quick adoption of technology, innovative ways of working, and

underlining the uncertainty and constant health and safety impacts (McKay et al., 2022). These dynamic

elements create conditions for the organization's adaptation and innovation to survive in the same

environment, even when its ultimate goal is to prosper.

Nowhere have these challenges been more acute than in the nonprofit sector. NGOs saw a massive

increase in demand, mainly for their services amidst the global pandemic, while they struggled to

survive from lack of fundraising and the forced change of programs (Young et al., 2020). Such volatility

is a revelation for nonprofits to become more adaptive and efficient in reacting to external changes while

preserving the core principles and goals. Large-scale adjustments to operations, structures, capabilities,

and cultures are frequently recommended to be in place after NGOs have finished their post-pandemic

operations (Maier et al., 2016).

3

However, organizational change still needs to be more manageable. Research shows that failure rates can reach up to 70% (Burnes, 2020). The change will come to a halt when leaders implement programs in a top-down approach and do not involve everyone in the process or address the human side of the disruption (Appelbaum & Morgenstern, 2012). The emotions behind such decisions, which are intrinsically connected to ongoing strategic needs, can single-handedly sabotage even the most rational and effective changes to the current functioning of the organization (Michel et al., 2013). To release inertia, you need to do it smoothly and cut people some slack regarding the transition time.

Effective change management models are usually the guiding frame for the process. The change or unfreeze-change-freeze theory of Lewin (1947) proposes that for change to be successful, there must be a stage of readiness and institutionalization. Kotter (2012) presents a series of eight steps, creating a sense of urgency and anchoring the changes through motivation. The 7S Model of McKinsey is the approach that considers the interrelationship across the organizational components (Pascale & Athos, 1981). Bridges (1991) stated that her transitional model includes endings, neutral zones and new beginnings.

While varying in emphasis, these models converge on certain principles. Effective change leadership involves clarifying needs through environmental scanning, painting an inspirational vision, and planning initiatives addressing identified gaps (Appelbaum et al., 2012). Stakeholder engagement via transparent communication, participation in decisions and change agent networks diffuses resistance by granting voice and building collective wisdom (Lewis, 2006). Motivational levers like incentives, goal-setting and enablement align efforts around change goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). Bolstering relationships and purposefulness further supports transitions at emotional levels (Carton, 2018).

This report aims to equip an NGO’s leadership team to manage an upcoming structural change based on such evidence-based principles. It first reviews findings on maintaining employee engagement, addressing change resistances and identifying external and internal catalysts. Recommendations are then presented on how leaders can communicate a compelling vision, foster motivation and engagement,

and anchor changes. The intention is to provide theoretically-grounded yet practical guidance to set leaders on the path to planned change success.

Findings and Discussion

Maintaining Employee Engagement

Employee engagement refers to positive work-related attitudes and discretionary efforts beneficial for organizational performance and adaptability (Saks, 2006). Engaged employees tend to feel energetic, absorbed and dedicated in their roles. They proactively employ skills to benefit their organizations rather than merely passively completing core tasks (Kahn, 1990). Supporting and maintaining engagement is thus crucial for organizations undergoing change.

However, major changes often negatively impact engagement. In a study across multiple industries, 77% of companies reported engagement declined during times of change, with the largest drop among high performers (Cook, 2008). Change-related uncertainties can overwhelm otherwise engaged employees.

Fatigue from continuous change also erodes morale, as seen recently with pandemic-driven volatility (SHRM, 2022). Further, disruptions to established routines and relationships upset work's meaningfulness, an intrinsic engagement driver (Fairlie, 2011).

Leadership behaviors substantially influence engagement amidst upheaval. Transformational leadership, with its emphasis on inspiration, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration and role modeling, powerfully impacts engagement by providing vision and expressing care for employees as people (Bass, 1985; Zhu et al., 2009). The two-way partnerships between leaders and followers prescribed in Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory also boost engagement through inclusion and participation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Both approaches entail supportive, trusting and strength-based relationships that mitigate uncertainty (Nemanich & Keller, 2007).

Additionally, several human resource (HR) practices enhance engagement during change (Albrecht et al., 2015). Effective internal communication across channels reduces ambiguity and signals transparency (Elving, 2005). Employee participation opportunities grant voice to shape initiatives. Change-supportive training and coaching build capabilities and confidence (Shin et al., 2012). Rewards and reinforcements incentivize realigning behaviours with strategy (Mangi et al., 2011). Leveraging such practices, HR plays a key role supporting leaders in maintaining engagement through change processes.

Additionally, several human resource (HR) practices enhance engagement during change (Albrecht et al., 2015). Effective internal communication across channels reduces ambiguity and signals transparency (Elving, 2005). Employee participation opportunities grant voice to shape initiatives. Change-supportive training and coaching build capabilities and confidence (Shin et al., 2012). Rewards and reinforcements incentivize realigning behaviours with strategy (Mangi et al., 2011). Leveraging such practices, HR plays a key role supporting leaders in maintaining engagement through change processes.

5

Overall, strong leadership and enabling HR practices are crucial for sustaining the discretionary efforts and positive organizational attitudes signifying high engagement. While major change introduces risks of declining morale, energy and performance, transformational leadership, high-quality relationships and participation initiatives can mitigate these effects by fulfilling employees' needs for information, involvement, development and support.

Managing Change

A longstanding challenge in change management is overcoming resistance. Employees naturally gravitate towards the known and comfortable rather than the ambiguous and untested (Michel et al., 2013). Even changes expected to provide benefits face skepticism due to ingrained behaviors and mindsets, potential downsides, or simple human difficulty with transitioning away from current realities (Piderit, 2000). Unmanaged, resistance severely impedes or even derails change efforts.

However, resistance should not be reflexively suppressed. Piderit (2000) advocated differentiating between emotional, cognitive and intentional dimensions of resistance. Emotional responses reflect anxiety, but do not preclude thoughtful considerations or supportive behaviours. Further, resistance can offer important signals about ineffective communication, flawed change strategies, or implementation complexities (Ford & Ford, 2009). Constructively leveraged, resistance provides feedback to refine initiative designs and processes in positive ways.

This perspective suggests engaging resistance to address underlying issues. Stakeholder participation and transparent communication surface concerns (Lewis, 2006). Inclusion and information combat perceptions of low change relevance or personal impacts, major resistance drivers (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). Leaders must also challenge their own assumptions and embrace resistance as an opportunity for self-reflection regarding change initiatives (Dent & Goldberg, 1999).

Kurt Lewin's (1947) force field analysis similarly conceptualized resistance as forces maintaining equilibrium versus those driving change. Raising the strength of driving forces to exceed restraining ones enables forward movement. Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) described approaches including education/communication, participation/involvement, facilitation/support, negotiation/agreement, manipulation/cooptation and explicit/implicit coercion to positively or negatively influence forces.

6

Positive methods diminish resistance by providing information and voice, while negative tactics simply

suppress it.

Overall, resistance often stems from rational evaluations and risk aversion rather than mere

stubbornness. Constructively leveraging feedback, pursuing participation and shaping supportive

contexts lessens detrimental resistance by addressing root causes. Leaders should welcome resistance

as input to refine strategies, enhance inclusion and boost change relevance and benefits.

Change Drivers

Change drivers refer to forces compelling organizational change (Rajan & Ganesan, 2017). Internal

drivers stem from organizational characteristics and strategic ambitions, while external drivers arise

from political, economic, social, technological and other environmental factors (Yukl, 2013). Assessing

key change drivers enables proactively initiating changes needed to thrive amidst evolving contexts.

External drivers compel organizations to realign with shifting external realities. Declining industries, new

regulations, technological disruptions and altered social expectations commonly spur structural and

operational changes (Christensen, 2013). Competitive moves also pressure organizations to adapt.

Amidst such tumultuousness, scanning external environments using PESTEL analysis helps identify

pivotal change drivers (Yüksel, 2012). This knowledge informs strategic priorities.

Internal change catalysts stem from organizational traits and leadership choices. Poor performance

prompts turnaround efforts and cultural shifts (Boyne, 2004). Leadership changes trigger new visions

and restructuring (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Growth ambitions drive capability upgrades and process

improvements (Rajan & Ganesan, 2017). Mergers and acquisitions require integrating cultures and ways

of operating (Appelbaum et al., 2000). Internal diagnostics like strategy and culture reviews surface such

needs.

Weighing internal and external factors reveals the most impactful change drivers. Leaders must sift

through complex environments to focus on the vital few catalysts necessitating adaptation (Pettigrew et

al., 1992). Evaluation criteria include relevance to performance/sustainability, alignment with strategic

goals, and urgency. Defining desired changes based on the most critical drivers provides focus for

planning.

Ongoing monitoring then enables course corrections if drivers shift. Regular PESTEL analysis identifies external changes compelling re-evaluation. Updated performance reports flag internal needs. Continuously scanning horizons through varied lenses ensures plans address the most significant drivers for competitive viability (Hayes, 2018). Adaptability to evolving catalysts sustains strategic relevance amidst contextual dynamism.

Overall, organizations cannot passively accept external jolts and inner dysfunction. Proactively reading environments and organizational needs positions leaders to undertake changes on their terms. Savvy diagnosis of and response to the key internal and external drivers of change is foundational to strategic success.

Mitigating Risks

Change inevitably involves risks of initiative failure, employee discontent or productivity declines as transformations disrupt established systems (Michel et al., 2013). However, leaders can mitigate risks through thorough preparation and planning.

SWOT analysis enables assessment of internal strengths/weaknesses and external opportunities/threats related to change plans (Helms & Nixon, 2010). Risks become visible by considering potential barriers, resource gaps or environmental turbulence. Initiative designs are refined accordingly. Scenario planning also anticipates plausible futures to stress test plans under different conditions (Chermack, 2005). This flexibility accommodates uncertainties.

Leaders should allow time before implementation for sensemaking and sensemaking. Sensemaking entails justifying change rationales to provide meaning and purpose amidst ambiguity, which builds acceptance (Gioa & Chittippeddi, 1991). Sensemaking enables people to integrate changes with identities and values through participation, forums and informal discussions (Bordia et al., 2011). Addressing the "why" and engaging stakeholders upfront smooths introduction.

Phased implementation further mitigates risks. Pilot testing facilitates refinement before full rollout (Appelbaum et al., 2012). Change advisory teams and coaches support transitions at the individual level (Hughes, 2016). Structured processes with appropriate pacing and milestone celebrations also maintain momentum (Kotter, 2012).

8

Openness to iteration and decentralization additionally builds resilience. Flexibility to modify plans based on emergent learnings enables navigating uncertainty (Burnes, 2005). Empowered actors across the organization given latitude to locally adapt changes foster agility (Bouckenoohe, 2010).

Ultimately, change risks cannot be eliminated but they can be considerably lessened. Diligence around design, sensegiving, structured rollout and decentralization positions leaders to undertake changes in turbulent times. While challenges will arise, thorough planning andexection with a tolerance for fluidity allows smoothly reaching desired end states.

Recommendations

Communicate Inspiring Vision and Strategic Objectives

A powerful vision outlines a future organizational state that solves key problems and aligns with values/identities, sparking motivation for change (Denning, 2011). Leaders must compellingly communicate the vision through vivid language, values framing and emotive narratives (Carton, 2018).

This awakens people to desired possibilities beyond status quo constraints.

Shorter-term strategic objectives then detail required changes to structures, processes, capabilities and culture along with measurable targets and timelines (Appelbaum et al., 2012). This grounds the vision with pragmatic plans. Leaders need to broadly share objectives to focus efforts and confer accountability.

Both vision and objectives necessitate reinforcement through regular messaging via channels like corporate communications, townhalls and team meetings. Cascading through hierarchies ensures understanding. Leaders at all levels must embody change ideals within their spheres of influence, providing integrity between words and actions.

Ongoing dialogue also allows stakeholder involvement to refine plans based on input about feasibilities and impacts. This participation boosts understanding and ownership while surfacing potential improvement areas (Lewis, 2006). Receptive yet decisive leaders can embrace contributions without losing sight of strategic needs.

In sum, interactive communication of an aspirational vision and strategically-aligned objectives ignites

change momentum. Leadership must articulate a clear roadmap, not only a vision statement, to use as a

compass in times of ambiguity.

Motivate Change Adoption

Engaged workers spend their own time doing the tasks that they see required in the organization (Olafsen et al., 2015). Some theories are essential in explaining what can cause motivation. Maslow's pyramid of needs (1943) shows that motivation is just the process of satisfying basic needs and achieving self-actualization. Another example would be Herzberg's (1959) two-factor model, which suggests that one needs to tackle the dissatisfying hygiene factors to drive the growth of motivating opportunities. Goal setting theory advises framing specific yet attainable goals as motivational focal points (Locke, 1968).

Leaders should deploy a range of motivating techniques tailored to individual needs. Extrinsic motivators like rewards and recognition leverage employees’ inner value calculations regarding effort expenditure (Vroom, 1964). Intrinsic motivators including autonomy, mastery and purpose provide deep fulfilment (Deci et al., 1999). High change leadership support also boosts motivation by demonstrating care for employees’ wellbeing (Michel et al., 2013). Goal setting further motivates change efforts by structuring them into measurable achievements. Leaders can set collective goals for vision realization as well as individual development goals aligned to new capabilities required. Defining objectives, metrics and timeframes channels energy towards concrete aims.

Resources including training, coaching and augmented supervisor support promote capability and motivation to implement changes (Shin et al., 2012). Clear process guidance and feedback systems also positively shape effort-to-outcome expectancies (Vroom, 1964). Visible ‘quick wins’ maintain self-efficacy when challenges arise (Kotter, 2012).

10

Overall, multi-pronged efforts tapping into needs, intrinsic desires and calculated decisions around goal attainment optimize motivation. Leaders must actively employ techniques tailored to local realities to fuel productive change efforts.

Foster Employee Engagement

Employee engagement represents positive attitudes toward one’s work and organization coupled with high degrees of energy, involvement and efficacy (Saks, 2006).

Fostering engagement enhances change success by boosting discretionary efforts and commitment.

Participation opportunities including input surveys, focus groups and committees provide voice in shaping changes.

Democratized decision-making grants autonomy over implementation approaches within employees’ scope of influence.

This engagement-enhancing empowerment breeds change ownership rather than mere compliance (Kahn, 1990).

Development offerings like training, lateral moves and special project opportunities help employees evolve amidst change.

Secondments to change management roles facilitate learning by doing.

External coaching and mentoring aid transitions and advancement at senior levels (Appelbaum et al., 2012).

Such investments in human capital sustain engagement.

Two-way communication that demonstrates genuine listening signals that employee perspectives matter (Groysberg & Slind, 2012a).

Honesty regarding rationales and timelines conveys respect during uncertainty.

Townhalls, skip-level meetings and informal leadership practices foster candid dialogue and inclusion (Kang & Sung, 2017).

Relationships anchored in trust also enable engagement.

Leaders expressing care for people’s wellbeing and championing their capabilities create psychological safety to experiment amidst ambiguity (Kahn, 1990).

Management support empowers engagement without over-structure.

Fundamentally, engagement results from work contexts enabling meaningful participation, development and supportive leadership.

Organizational changes require rethinking routines to enact these conditions despite disruptions.

Conclusion

This report provided recommendations to a non-profit organization’s leadership team on strategically managing an upcoming structural change based on academic research and models. Amidst the ever-accelerating pace of change, success requires moving beyond simplistic notions of driving initiatives forward through hierarchical control. Instead, leaders must skillfully engage people’s heads, hearts and hands to transition collectively into new organizational states.

Maintaining engagement, channeling resistance constructively, and reading external/internal forces for change prompts are crucial leadership skills. In the implementation strategy, we will address communication, motivational, and participation issues. Through insightful incorporation of evidence-based methodologies, the enacted changes serve as pragmatic platforms for the growth and development of the organization’s operational competence, outputs, and cultural harmony, aligned with the mission and organizational values. Instead of being satisfied with only change compliance, leaders can drive change commitment through techniques such as compassion and wisdom, which are also considered.

It may be challenging to adapt to change, but it can provide a way for regeneration and renewal that preserving the former systems can not provide. This report offers non-profit leaders the essential strategies to take them through this phase of change, which is full of challenges and opportunities. Leadership is a matter of responsibility and mission to develop and uphold the qualities of the community by providing empowerment and attention to the environment's needs in the process of its becoming.

References

Albrecht, S.L., Breidahl, E. and Marty, A. (2015) 'Organizational Resources, Organizational Engagement Climate, and Employee Engagement', Career Development International, 20(1), pp. 67-85.

Appelbaum, S.H., Habashy, S., Malo, J. and Shafiq, H. (2012) 'Back to the future: revisiting Kotter's 1996 change model', Journal of Management Development, 31(8), pp.764-782.

Appelbaum, S.H., Habashy, S., Malo, J. and Shafiq, H. (2012) 'Back to the future: revisiting Kotter's 1996 change model', Journal of Management Development, 31(8), pp.764-782.

Armenakis, A.A. and Harris, S.G. (2002) 'Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness', Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), pp. 169-183.

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

Bordia, P., Restubog, S.L.D., Jimmieson, N.L. and Irmer, B.E. (2011) 'Haunted by the past: effects of poor change management history on employee attitudes and turnover', Group & Organization Management, 36(2), pp. 191-222.

Bordia, P., Restubog, S.L.D., Jimmieson, N.L. and Irmer, B.E. (2011) 'Haunted by the past: effects of poor change management history on employee attitudes and turnover', Group & Organization Management, 36(2), pp. 191-222.

Bouckenoghe, D. (2010) 'Positioning Change Recipients’ Attitudes Toward Change in the Organizational Change Literature', Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(4), pp. 500-531.

13

Bridges, W. (1991) Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.

Burnes, B. (2005) 'Complexity theories and organizational change', International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), pp.73-90.

Burnes, B. (2005) 'Complexity theories and organizational change', International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), pp.73-90.

Burnes, B. (2020) The origins of Lewin’s three-step model of change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(1), 32-59.

Carton, A.M. (2018) “I’m Not Mopping the Floors, I’m Putting a Man on the Moon”: How NASA Leaders Enhanced the Meaningfulness of Work by Changing the Meaning of Work’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2), pp. 323-369.

Carton, A.M. (2018) ‘I’m Not Mopping the Floors, I’m Putting a Man on the Moon’: How NASA Leaders Enhanced the Meaningfulness of Work by Changing the Meaning of Work’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2), pp. 323-369.

Cascio, W.F. and Montealegre, R. (2016) 'How Technology Is Changing Work and Organizations', Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), pp. 349-375.

Chermack, T.J. (2005) 'Studying scenario planning: Theory, research suggestions, and hypotheses', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(1), pp. 59-73.

Chermack, T.J. (2005) 'Studying scenario planning: Theory, research suggestions, and hypotheses', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(1), pp. 59-73.

Christensen, C.M. (2013) The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.

CIPD (2021) Employee engagement factsheet. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Available at: https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/engagement/factsheet (Accessed: 24 February 2023).

Cook, S. (2008) The essential guide to employee engagement: Better business performance through staff satisfaction. London: Kogan Page Publishers.

Cummings, S., Bridgman, T. and Brown, K.G. (2016) ‘Unfreezing change as three steps:

Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management’, Human Relations, 69(1), pp.

33-60.

Deci, E.L., Olafsen, A.H. and Ryan, R.M. (2017) ‘Self-Determination Theory in Work

Organizations: The State of a Science’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology

and Organizational Behavior, 4, pp.19-43.

Deci, E.L., Olafsen, A.H. and Ryan, R.M. (2017) ‘Self-Determination Theory in Work

Organizations: The State of a Science’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology

and Organizational Behavior, 4, pp.19-43.

Denning, S. (2011) The leader's guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of business

narrative. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Denning, S. (2011) The leader's guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of business narrative. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Dent, E.B. and Goldberg, S.G. (1999) ‘Challenging Resistance to Change’, The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), pp. 25-41.

Elving, W.J. (2005) ‘The role of communication in organisational change’, Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), pp.129-138.

Erwin, D.G. and Garman, A.N. (2010) ‘Resistance to organizational change: linking research and practice’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(1), pp.39-56.

Fairlie, P. (2011) ‘Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes:

Implications for human resource development’, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), pp. 508-525.

Ford, J.D. and Ford, L.W. (2009) ‘Decoding Resistance to Change’, Harvard Business Review,

87(4), pp. 99-103.

Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and D'Amelio, A. (2008) 'Resistance to change: The rest of the story',

Academy of Management Review, 33(2), pp. 262-277.

Fu, W. and Deshpande, S.P. (2014) ‘The Impact of Caring Climate, Job Satisfaction, and

Organizational Commitment on Job Performance of Employees in a China’s Insurance Company', Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), pp. 339-349.

Gioa, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991) ‘Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation’, Strategic management journal, 12(6), pp.433-448.

Gioa, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991) ‘Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation’, Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), pp.433-448.

Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) 'Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective', The leadership quarterly, 6(2), pp.219-247.

Grant, A.M. (2012) 'Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership', Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), pp. 458-476.

Groysberg, B. and Slind, M. (2012a) 'Leadership Is a Conversation', Harvard Business Review, 90(6), pp. 76-84.

Groysberg, B. and Slind, M. (2012a) 'Talk, Inc: How Trusted Leaders Use Conversation to Power Their Organizations', Harvard Business Review Press.

Hayes, J. (2018) The theory and practice of change management. Palgrave.

Hillmann, P. and Guenther, E. (2020) 'Organisational change: conceptions, reasons, and effects', Management Review Quarterly, 70(3), pp. 315-358.

Hughes, M. (2016) 'Leading changes: Why transformation explanations fail', Leadership, 12(4), pp. 449-469.

Hughes, M.M. and Nixon, J. (2010) 'Exploring SWOT analysis – where are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade', Journal of Strategy and Management, 3(3), pp. 215-251.

Hughes, M. (2016) 'Leading changes: Why transformation explanations fail', Leadership, 12(4), pp. 449-469.

Kahn, W.A. (1990) ‘Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at

Work’, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692-724.

Kahn, W.A. (1990) ‘Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at

Work’, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692-724.

Kang, M. and Sung, M. (2017) 'How symmetrical employee communication leads to employee

engagement and positive employee communication behaviors: The mediation of

employee-organization relationships', Journal of Communication Management, 21(1),

pp. 82-102.

Kang, M. and Sung, M. (2017) 'How symmetrical employee communication leads to employee

engagement and positive employee communication behaviors: The mediation of

employee-organization relationships', Journal of Communication Management, 21(1),

pp. 82-102.

Kotter, J. P. (2012) Leading change. Harvard business press.

Kotter, J.P. (2012) Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (2008) ‘Choosing strategies for change’, Harvard business

review, 86(7/8), pp. 130-139.

Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S.C., Jonas, K., Quaquebeke, N.V. and Dick, R. (2012) 'How do

transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination-based

analysis of employees' needs as mediating links', Journal of Organizational Behavior,

33(8), pp. 1031-1052.

Kubler-Ross, E. (1969) On death and dying. New York: Macmillan.

Kulter, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E. and Truss, K. (2008) 'Employee engagement: a

literature review', Working Paper Series No 19. Kingston Business School, Kingston

University.

Lawrence, P.R. (1969) ‘How to deal with resistance to change’, Harvard Business Review,

47(1), pp. 4-12.

Lewin, K. (1947) ‘Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science;

social equilibria and social change’, Human Relations, 1(1), pp. 5-41.

Lewis, L.K. (2006) ‘Employee perspectives on implementation communication as predictors of

perceptions of success and resistance', Western Journal of Communication, 70(1), pp.

23-46.

Lewis, L.K. (2006) ‘Employee perspectives on implementation communication as predictors of

perceptions of success and resistance’, Western Journal of Communication, 70(1), pp.

23-46.

Lindenberg, M. and Bryant, C. (2001) Going global: Transforming relief and development

NGOs. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B. and Johansen, S.T. (2005) ‘The production of trust during

organizational change’, Journal of Change Management, 5(2), pp.221-245.

Locke, E.A. (1968) ‘Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives’, Organizational behavior

and human performance, 3(2), pp.157-189.

Locke, E.A. (1968) ‘Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives’, Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 3(2), pp.157-189.

Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2002) ‘Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and

task motivation: A 35-year odyssey’, American psychologist, 57(9), p.705.

Maier, F., Meyer, M. and Steinbereithner, M. (2016) ‘Nonprofit organizations becoming

business-like: A systematic review’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1),

pp.64-86.

Mangi, R.A., Kanasro, H.A. and Burdi, M.B. (2015) ‘Motivation tools and organizational

success: A critical analysis of motivational theories’, Government: Research Journal of

Political Science, 4(4), pp.51-62.

Maslow, A.H. (1943) ‘A theory of human motivation’, Psychological review, 50(4), p.370.

Maslow, A.H. (1943) ‘A theory of human motivation’, Psychological Review, 50(4), p.370.

McKay, K., Kuntz, J.R. and Näswall, K. (2022) ‘The effect of change fatigue on engagement via

psychological safety and job demands: A two-wave study’, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 43(4), pp.553-568.

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N. and Haug, N. (2019) ‘Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews’, Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), p.101385.

Michel, A., By, R.T. and Burnes, B. (2013) ‘The limitations of dispositional resistance in relation

to organizational change’, Management Decision, 51(4), pp.761-780.

Mondejar, R., Vargas, M. and Mondejar, J. (2021) ‘Technology Challenges and Drivers When

Changing Organizational Structures in NGOs’, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector

Marketing, 33(2), pp.203-223.

Nemanich, L.A. and Keller, R.T. (2007) ‘Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field

study of employees’, The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), pp.49-68.

Olafsen, A.H., Halvari, H., Forest, J. and Deci, E.L. (2015) ‘Show them the money? The role of

pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of

intrinsic work motivation’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(4), pp.447-457.

Olafsen, A.H., Halvari, H., Forest, J. and Deci, E.L. (2015) ‘Show them the money? The role of

pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of

intrinsic work motivation’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(4), pp.447-457.

Parish, J.T., Cadwallader, S. and Busch, P. (2008) 'Want to, need to, ought to: employee

commitment to organizational change', Journal of Organizational Change Management,

21(1), pp. 32-52.

Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1981). The art of Japanese management: Applications for

American executives. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Pettigrew, A., Woodman, R. and Cameron, K. (2001) ‘Studying organizational change and

development: Challenges for future research’, Academy of management journal, 44(4),

pp.697-713.

Piderit, S.K. (2000) ‘Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional

view of attitudes toward an organizational change’, Academy of management review,

25(4), pp.783-794.

Porter, M.E. (2008) ‘The five competitive forces that shape strategy’, Harvard business review,

86(1), pp.25-40.

Rajan, R. and Ganesan, R. (2017) ‘A critical analysis of John P. Kotter's change management

framework’, Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 7(7),

pp.181-203.

Robertson-Smith, G. and Markwick, C. (2009) ‘Employee engagement: A review of current

thinking’, Institute for Employment Studies Report, 469.

Saks, A.M. (2006) ‘Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement’, Journal of

managerial psychology, 21(7), pp.600-619.

Saks, A.M. (2006) ‘Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement’, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21(7), pp.600-619.

Shin, J., Taylor, M.S. and Seo, M.G. (2012) ‘Resources for change: The relationships of

organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees' attitudes and

behaviors toward organizational change', Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), pp.

727-748.

Shin, J., Taylor, M.S. and Seo, M.G. (2012) ‘Resources for change: The relationships of

organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees' attitudes and

behaviors toward organizational change', Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), pp.

727-748.

SHRM (2022) Employee Burnout Tops Workplace Concerns for Third Straight Year, SHRM

Finds. Society for Human Resource Management. Available

at: https://www.shrm.org/about-shrm/press-room/press-releases/pages/employee-

burnout-tops-workplace-concerns-for-third-straight-year-shrm-finds.aspx (Accessed: 24

February 2023).

Stobierski, T. (2020) ‘What is change management and how does it work?’, Harvard

Business

School Online, Available at: https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what-is-change-

management (Accessed: 24 February 2023).

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2013) ‘The impact of job crafting on job demands, job

resources, and well-being’, Journal of occupational health psychology, 18(2), p.230.

Tushman, M.L. and O'Reilly III, C.A. (1996) ‘Ambidextrous organizations: Managing

evolutionary and revolutionary change’, California management review, 38(4), pp.8-29.

Vroom, V. H. (1964) Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Vroom, V. H. (1964) Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wang, G. (2012) ‘How Do Top Managers Provide Leadership in the Change Process within

Public Organizations?', International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(2), pp. 366

-389.

Young, D.R., Kim, M. and Tandon, R. (2020) ‘Government Failure and the Nonprofit Sector:

The Response of Nonprofit Organizations to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United

States’, Public Administration Review, 80(5), pp.903-908.

Yukl, G. (2013) Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Yüksel, I. (2012) ‘Developing a multi-criteria decision making model for PESTEL analysis’,

International Journal of Business and Management, 7(24), p.52.

Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2009) ‘Moderating Role of Follower Characteristics

with Transformational Leadership and Follower Work Engagement’, Group &

Organization Management, 34(5), pp. 590-619.

21