Testing the Mediating Role of Work Engagement in the Relationship

between Resistance to Change and Affective Commitment to Change

Susilo and Wustari L. Mangundjaya

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia

Keywords: Resistance to Change, Work Engagement, Affective Commitment to Change.

Abstract: The pace of technological development has rapidly changed, so it forces organizations to adapt, and one of

the critical thing for change organization is to get employee commitment and reduce employee resistance to

change. The aims of this paper are to study the relationship between resistance to change and affective

commitment to change mediated by work engagement in one of the large companies in Indonesia. This

study discusses the issue of the existence of work engagement at resistance to change and affective

commitment to change with previous research showing that engagement influences commitment to change.

The dimensions of resistance to change are routine seeking, emotional reaction, short-term focus, and

cognitive recognition. The dimensions of work engagement are vigorous, dedication and absorption. Both of

these variables are associated with affective commitment to change. The result (N = 334) shows that the

mediating role of work engagement in resistance to change can improve affective commitment to change.

But the absorption dimension does not have a significant relationship with a commitment to change. It

shows that working with high concentration and sinking into work does not sufficiently influence the

affective commitment to change.

1 INTRODUCTION

Technological development has rapidly grown in all

area including the amount of data and convergence

difference technology (Kagermann 2015) especially

in Industrial 4.0 in all aspects are challenges and

opportunities for organizations. Various new

business opportunities not only for new

organizations but also business organization

restructuring including those that are mature

(Heikkilä et al. 2018). According to Kasali (2017)

change in an organization does not only occur on the

strategy in general but also happen on the

fundamental aspect of the business including the

structure of the cost, culture, and the ideology of the

industry. Change has to be backed by all

stakeholders through their commitment and ability

to change to ensure that it happens within the

organization (Mangundjaya 2014). Many

organizations have failed to attempt change, and one

of them is due to the lack of support and

commitment from the member of the organization

who involves in this transformation (Mangundjaya

2016). Herscovitch & Meyer (2002) stated that

commitment, is divided into three forms, those are

desire (affective commitment), perceived cost

(continuance commitment) and obligation

(normative commitment). The research suggests that

a higher affective commitment in the process of

change has the ability to see the value of

transformation and involve further to ensure the

success of it and that is to promote change (Morin et

al. 2016).

In the context of the employee, employee support

is a key factor in implementing change in the

organization (Van der Voet et al. 2016). The success

of change depends on employees because the

organization only announces changes, while changes

are made by employees (Shah et al. 2017).

Employees are expected to carry out, manage and

commited to their work according to the

expectations of the organization. Yalabik et al.

(2015) stated that work engagement would affect

commitment to the organization.

Base on this explanation, we decided to test the

role of work engagement in the context of the

relationship between resistance to change and

employee commitment.

Susilo, . and Mangundjaya, W.

Testing the Mediating Role of Work Engagement in the Relationship between Resistance to Change and Affective Commitment to Change.

DOI: 10.5220/0008428601510158

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Inclusive Business in the Changing World (ICIB 2019), pages 151-158

ISBN: 978-989-758-408-4

151

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Affective Commitment to Change

Commitment to change is defined as a power to

perform an act towards the success of

implementation to change namely affective

commitment, normative commitment, and

continuance commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer

2002). During this decade, affective commitment to

change has been the main idea among researchers

(Choi 2011; Ritz et al. 2012), which has

significantly improved in overcoming change and

increasing supportive behaviour during

organizational change (Jaros 2010). In this regard,

affective commitment to change is significant in the

context of turbulence that is characterized by the

existence of sustainable changes that require

ongoing contributions from employees. Thus,

employee confidence in change is needed, to

increase affective commitment to change (Morin et

al. 2016). An affective commitment exists when

people choose to stay because of their positive

feeling towards the company while normative

commitment is described as an obligation that

people should commit to the organization. unlike

affective and normative, people with a continuance

commitment look for some consideration whether

they should stay or not based on something they

already had in the organization such as social life or

financial stability (Becker 1960). Affective

commitment to change refers to situations where

employees believe in change initiatives because of

the inherent benefits of these changes so that they

provide support for those changes voluntarily (Adil

2016). Findings from the study by Morin et al.

(2016) show that affective commitment to change is

a large part of orthogonal reactions, that more

affective commitment to change shaped by beliefs

about the need for change and legitimacy. Study that

doing by (Adil (2016) stated that appropriateness has

a significant positive impact on affective

commitment to change when controlled for gender,

qualification and experience.

Furthermore, commitment is not only possessed

by the employee but also on every individual within

an organization. As have been suggested by (Abrell-

Vogel & Rowold, (2014) that supportive leader

within an organization may influence the staff

affective commitment towards change. Thus this

research applies to all level of management.

2.2 Resistance to Change

In various literature, resistance to organizational

changes is very much related to the respond of

human characteristics (Burnes 2015) and resistance

also has many definitions based on one's theoretical

framework (Yilmaz & Kiliçoğlu 2013). Resistance

to change is defined by Armenakis & Harris (2009)

as any different action that slows, opposes, or

impedes efforts to change management. Other

definision, resistance to change is described by

Zander (1950) as an effort to keep away from the

impact of real or expected change while Lewis in

2018 stated that resistant to change is built upon the

employee’s negative attitude and cognitive,

disobedience for instance, towards the initiatives to

change. Oreg (2003) has analyses dimention of

resistance to change: routine seeking, emotional

reaction to imposed change, cognitive rigidity, and

short-term focus. Hence, human has the key role inin

givinging an impact in the process of change.

Although change is applied on the basis of positive

reasons such as adaptation to an unstable

environment and reasons for staying competitive,

organizational members may react negatively and

reject changes to change efforts (Yilmaz & Kiliçoğlu

2013). Ewenstein et al. (2016) have also pointed out

that the program of change which happens in 70% of

organizations in the world failed to achieve their

goals, around 30% of them was not successful due to

the employee resistance to change and others due to

lack of management support. based on this statistic,

it argued that resistant to change is one of the

reasons why some companies have failed to

implement change to their employees (Harich 2010).

Some of the research on resistance to change

refers to the individual level which includes three

dimensions: cognitive, affective, and behavior

(Erwin & Garman 2010). In the cognitive

dimension, employees think about changes that

occur, including the ability to feel effective changes

in new work roles (Giangreco & Peccei 2005). The

affective dimension points to the concerns of

employees' failures in a worsening situation, fear of

possible losses and an uncertain future (Pakdel

2016). The behavioral dimension refers to the

response of employee actions to changes that are

actual manifestations of observable resistance,

actions, and events (Fiedler 2010).

In general, resistance to change is generally seen

as a negative force, although it is possible to provide

positive goals, for example to rethink or evaluate

expected changes and encourage more effective

methods of change (Coetsee 1999). Previous

ICIB 2019 - The 2nd International Conference on Inclusive Business in the Changing World

152

research has shown that employee resistance is a

barrier to changing implementation (Mabin &

Zealand 2009). Perren et al. (2005) stated that

resistance to change is perceived as a negative act.

However, many researchers believe that it is

somewhat a positive thing which is seen as a natural

defense mechanism in the organization to alter the

decision or change which perceived can give a

negative impact to the working environment. Every

people has a unique defense mechanism to change

and it may make every people adapt with change

(Syahmi et al. 2017).

Hypothesis 1: Resistance to change is negatively

related to affective commitment to change

2.3 Work Engagement

Work engagement is an excellent predictor for

individuals, teams, and organizations (Bakker &

Albrecht 2018) related to the quality of work results.

Because of their dedication and focus on the work

they do, workers who have work engagement show

better job performance in their roles (Christian et al.

2011). Work engagement is defined as a condition of

positive, motivational-affective fulfillment

characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption

(Schaufeli & Bakker 2004). Employees who have

high energy levels will be enthusiastic and truly

immersed in their work (Bakker & Albrecht 2018).

According to Bell & Barkhuizen (2011)

characteristic from vigor are the level of energy and

tenacity of work, the will to expend extra effort to

work, and the persistence of encountering distress.

Whereas dedication includes the feeling of

importance, enthusiasm, inspiration, proud, and

challenge. Last, absorption characteristics are "do

the totality work happilythe and it's hard to get away

from work".

Employees who engage with their work are

valuable employees because they determine the

productivity and functionality of the Company

(Strom et al. 2014). For organizations, employee

engagement is a key business driver in the success of

organizations where high levels of engagement

improve organizational performance (Lockwood

2007). Vogelgesang et al. (2013) stated that

employee engagement is an asset for the company

because it causes employees to work with better

performance, on the contrary, disengaged employees

will become a barrier for the company. For

employees, engagement usually makes them

enthusiastic about their organization and chooses to

remain in the organization (Lockwood 2007).

Hypothesis 2: Resistance to change has a negative

impact on work engagement

Hypothesis 3: Work engagement has a positive

impact on affective commitment to change

2.4 The Relationship between

Resistance to Change, Work

Engagement and Commitment to

Change

Oreg (2003) found that the tendency of resistance to

change with a four-dimensional model of resistance

was strongly associated with affective reactions to

change so that it could indicate a relationship with

affective commitment to change. Meyer et al. (1993)

found that affective commitment positively related

to willingness to suggest improvements and are

(2003) found that resistance to change showed

individuals who conducted routine searches would

immediately maintain current conditions and

individuals who show cognitive rigidity tend not to

change their mindset.

One of the company's successes factors in

change is to maintain engagement because

engagement in organizational as organization change

will have a positive result in increasing improving

performance. Uddin et al. (2018) finding that better

employee engagement could enhance team

performance in organizational contexts. Employees

with sufficient resources will be able to overcome

the challenges encountered in the workplace and can

achieve personal and corporate goals that can

encourage work engagement and increase

performance (Gawke et al. 2017). For organizational

context, Choi et al. (2015) have examined that

affective organizational commitment is related

positively to employee work engagement. Bell &

Barkhuizen (2011) state that barriers to change and

work engagement have a significant relationship,

with a substantial effect.

Hypothesis 4: Work engagement mediate the

relationship between resistance to change and

affective commitment to change.

3 METHODS

3.1 Data Collection

Data was collected through a questionnaire of

Affective Commitment to change from Herscovitch

and Meyer (2002), resistance to change from Oreg

(2003) and work engagement using Utrecht Work

Testing the Mediating Role of Work Engagement in the Relationship between Resistance to Change and Affective Commitment to Change

153

Engagement Scale (UWES)-9 (Schaufeli & Bakker,

2004). The details of these questionnaires were

shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Profile of the instruments.

Name of Scale Total Ite

Reliabilit

Affective commitment to

change (ACTC)

6 α = .71

Resistance to change (RTC) 20 α = .92

Work en

ement

(

)

15 α = .94

3.2 Measurement

Affective commitment to change was measured

using Commitment to Change Inventory from

Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) that was translated to

the Indonesia language consisting of 6 items. The

measurement of this variable using a Likert scale of

1-5 (1 = Very unlikely, 6 = Very likely) with a

Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of 0.71. An example of

a statement at Commitment to Change Inventory is

“This change is a good strategy for this

organization”. A high score indicates a high level of

affective commitment to change.

Resistance to change was measured using

resistance to change the scale from Oreg (2013) that

was modified and translated to the Indonesia

language consisting of 6 items. The measurement of

this variable using a Likert scale of 1-5 (1 = Very

unlikely, 6 = Very likely) with a Cronbach's Alpha

coefficient of 0.92. An example of the statement at

resistance to change scale is "When I am informed

of a change of plans, I tense up a bit”. A high score

indicates a high level of resistance to change.

Work Engagement. Work engagement was

measured using Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

(UWES)-9 that was modified and translate to

indonesia languages (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004

consisted of 15 items using a Likert-type scale

ranging from 0-6 (0 = Never, 6 = Always) with a

Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of 0.94. An example of

a statement at UWES is, "I feel strong and energized

at work". High score of items indicates a high level

of work engagement

3.3 Participants and Procedures

Participants were employees who work in

subsidiaries company of Airport operator in

Indonesia. Questionnaires distribute and access by

online with all participants were 432 participants,

but only 334 respondents who fill the questionnaires

(response rate =77,3%). Samples were taken from all

the population of the organization by online

questionnaires. Characteristics of respondents are as

follows, permanent/contract staff, worked at least six

months in the company, at least graduated from high

school and has to experience organizational change.

Present profile of participants consisted of 66.8%

male and 33.2% female, age within range 18 – 53

years old, majority educational attainment levels are

senior high school (72.5%), tenure less then 2 years

(79.4%) and position as staff (67.1%). The resume

profile of the participants can be seen in Table 2

below.

Table 2: Demographic Profile.

Characteristics N %

Gender

Male 223 66.8%

Female 111 33.2%

Age

<25 tahun 124 37.2%

–

44 tahun 195 58.5%

>44 tahun 15 4.5%

Education

Senior Hi

h School 242 72.5%

Bachelor Degree 87 26.0%

Master Degree 5 1.5%

Position

Staff 224 67.1%

evisor 66 19.8%

Middle Management 27 8.1%

Top Management 27 5.1%

Tenure

ears 265 79.4%

2 - 10

ears 56 16.8%

> 10

ears 13 3.9%

3.4 Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using Pearson’s Correlation, and

Hayes Process Macro v.3.0.

4 RESULT

The result of this study will be discussed in 4 parts,

1) correlation between resistance to change and

affective commitment to change, 2) correlation

between resistance to change and work engagement,

3) correlation between work engagement and

affective commitment to change, and 4) role of work

engagement as mediator for resistance to change and

affective commitment to change.

From table 2, it shows that resistance to change,

affective commitment to change and work

engagement have Cronbach's alpha based on

standardized items of .92, .71 and .94 for all items.

ICIB 2019 - The 2nd International Conference on Inclusive Business in the Changing World

154

Table 3: Statistics Summary and correlations among

variables.

No Variable M SD 1 2 3

1 ACTC 4.73 0.86 1

2 RTC 3.44 1.09 -.65** 1

3 WE 5.00 0.74 .15** .21** 1

Routine

seeking

3.27 1.36 -.66** .88** .13*

Emotional

reaction

3.03 1.40 -.62** .91** .09

Short-term

focus

2.89 1.48 -.63** .92** .14**

Cognitive

Rigidit

4.58 0.99 -.14* .54** .47**

8 Vi

orous 5.17 0.76 .21** .14** .92**

9 Dedication 5.24 0.76 .23** .14* .92**

10 Absor

tion 4.58 0.95 0.01 .30** .87**

Table 3 shows the correlation between resistance

to change and affective commitment to change is

negative and significant (r= -.65, <0.01). The

correlation for affective commitment to change

towards each dimension of resistance to change is

negatively and significant ( <0.01 except cognitive

rigidity which has <0.05). Correlation between

resistance to change and work engagement is

positively and significant (r= .21, <0.01).

Correlation between work engagement and affective

commitment to change is positively and significant

(r = .15, <0.01). Correlation for affective

commitment to change towards each dimension of

work engagement is positively and significant (

<0.01) except absorption which not significant.

Table 4: Statistics Summary and correlations among

variables and demographic.

Variable M SD 1 2 3

ACTC 4.73 5.14 1

RTC 3.44 17.46 -.65** 1

WE 5.00 11.14 .15** .22** 1

e 28.53 7.76 .25**

.24** .22** 1

Gende

1.33 0.47 -0.06

.03 -0.08 -0.04

Education 1.57 0.93 .27**

.31** -.16** .24**

Position 1.51 0.85 .17**

.12* 0.10 .34**

Tenure 1.81 3.13 .20**

.24** 0.09 .34**

Table 4 showed that three correlations of 3

variables in this study with demographic variable

affective commitment to change has significant and

positive correlation with age, education, position and

tenure, but not significant with gender. Resistance to

change has significant and negatively correlation

with age, education, position and tenure, but not

significant with gender. Thus, work engagement has

significantly correlated with age and negatively

correlation with education.

The implication from the results are as follows:

In terms of affective commitment to change, there is

significant between group’s base on gender, age,

education, position, and tenure. In terms of

resistance to change, there is a significant mean

difference between the group’s base on age,

education, position, and tenure. There is no

differences based on gender. In term of work

engagement, there is a mean difference between the

group’s base on age, education, position, and tenure.

There are no differences based on gender.

To test the role of work engagement (hypothesis

4), we examined using Hayes Process Macro v.3.0

on SPSS 24 software. The result shows that work

engagement mediated the relationship between

resistance to change and affective commitment to

change (indirect effect = 0.02, SE = 0.006, 95% CI

[.01, .03]) supporting the hypothesis. The direct

effect between resistance to change and affective

commitment to change was still significant after

controlling for work engagement (direct effect = -

.21, SE = .01, p<.01)

Figure 1: Effect of resistance to change on affective

commitment to change through work engagement.

5 DISCUSSION

The study examines the impact of work engagement

as a mediator in the relationship between resistance

to change and affective commitment to change.

Resistance to change has a positive connection with

work engagement. This finding supported the

previous study conducted by Bell, E., & Barkhuizen,

N. (2011) which showed that barrier to change and

work engagement has positively and significant

relationship especially for the people-related barrier.

People-related barriers in this regard refer to

resistance from both staff and managers. The

barriers caused by satisfaction with the status quo,

resistance to change itself, change fatigue,

inadequate leadership or management, uncertainty,

fear, competitive commitments, etc.

Testing the Mediating Role of Work Engagement in the Relationship between Resistance to Change and Affective Commitment to Change

155

Table 5: Descriptive analysis of commitment to change, resistance to change and work engagement.

Based on that research, People-related barrier also

had a significant relationship with the dimension of

work engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption

in common effect. A second finding of this research

is relationship work engagement has a significant

relationship to affective commitment to change. This

finding also supported the research conducted by

Mangundjaya (2014) that employee engagement has

a significant and positive relationship to a commit-

ment to change. This study also shows that

resistance to change and commitment to change

have a significant and negative relationship. This is

supported by research conducted by Coetzee and

Stanz in Bell, E., & Barkhuizen, N. (2011) that

someone who has resistance to change can develop a

resistance to change. Thus, it can be said that

employee resistance can be a significant obstacle to

effective organizational change because it can lead

to skepticism and resistance to employees. The last,

finding on this study shows work engagement

mediates the relationship between resistance to

change and affective commitment to change masure

using Hayes Process Macro v.3.0 on SPSS 24

software. In this study, demography consist of age,

education, position and tenure, has a significant

effect for affective commitment to change,

resistance to change and work engagement. Gender

factor only significant at affective commitment to

change, but not at resistance to change and work

engagement.

5.1 Research Limitation

This research has some limitations as follows: first,

this research collected the data only through self-

reports/questionnaires which might create some

potential bias/subjective and did not support through

other methods (Tehseen 2017) such as FGDs or

interviews. Second, this study did not define the

specific change in the organization so that the

respondent can assume many different changes in

the same organization such as policy changes,

system changes or other changes at the

organizational level. The next limitation is the type

of organization studied in this research only in one

organization so that other studies might produce

findings that are different from other types of

organizations.

5.2 Concluding Remark

The implication of this study is essential to manage

work engagement to increase affective commitment

to change as an effort to achieve successful change.

ICIB 2019 - The 2nd International Conference on Inclusive Business in the Changing World

156

This is support by Geldenhuys et al (2014) that work

engagement has positive correlates organisational

commitment. Some possible direct effects from the

process of increasing engagement to commitment to

change, such as 1) improve employee vigorous that

defined as energy and high mental resilience when

working and, investing and overcoming difficulties,

2) increasing employee dedication to work that

defined as strong involvement through a sense of

significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and

challenges in work (Schaufeli & Bakker 2004). The

findings also show that organizations need to

improve work engagement to increase affective

commitment to change, it will have implications for

decreasing employee resistance. This is support by

Stanley et al. (2005) that resistance to change as an

indicator of change-specific cynicism, eliminated

when employee involvement in the organization

grow (Grama & Todericiu 2016). In other words,

employees tend to associate work engagement with

company changes based on the benefits that will be

obtained. If the organization succeeds in

communicating the benefits of the desired change to

the employee, then the employees will be more

receptive to the change. Further studies are needed

regarding variables that will have an impact on

affective commitment to change in broader

organizations to further identify other influential

factors.

REFERENCES

Adil, M.S., 2016. Impact of change readiness on

commitment to technological change, focal, and

discretionary behaviors: Evidence from the

manufacturing sector of Karachi. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 29(2), pp.222–

241.

Armenakis, A.A. & Harris, S.G., 2009. Reflections: our

Journey in Organizational Change Research and

Practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2),

pp.127–142. Available at:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1469701

0902879079.

Bakker, A.B. & Albrecht, S., 2018. Work engagement:

current trends. Career Development International,

23(1), pp.4–11.

Becker, H.S., 1960. Notes on the Concept of Commitment.

The American Journal of Sociology, 66(1), pp.32–40.

Bell, E. & Barkhuizen, N., 2011. The relationship between

barriers to change and the work engagement of

employees in a South African property management

company. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1),

pp.1–11. Available at:

http://sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/view/935.

Burnes, B., 2015. Understanding resistance to change –

building on coch and french. Journal of Change

Management, 15(2), pp.92–116. Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2014.969755.

Choi, M., 2011. EMPLOYEES’ ATTITUDES TOWARD

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: A LITERATURE

REVIEW. Human resource Management, 50(4),

pp.479–500.

Choi, S.B., Tran, T.B.H. & Park, B. Il, 2015. Inclusive

Leadership and Work Engagement: Mediating Roles

of Affective Organizational Commitment and

Creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: an

international journal, 43(6), pp.931–943. Available at:

http://openurl.ingenta.com/content/xref?genre=article

&issn=0301-2212&volume=43&issue=6&spage=931.

Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. & Slaughter, J.E., 2011.

Work Engagement: a Quantitative Review and Test of

Its Relations With Task and Contextual Performance.

Personnel Psychology, 64(1), pp.89–136. Available at:

http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1744-

6570.2010.01203.x.

Coetsee, L., 1999. From Resistance to Commitment.

Public Administration Quarterly, 23(2), pp.204–222.

Erwin, D.G. & Garman, A.N., 2010. Resistance to

organizational change: Linking research and practice.

Leadership and Organization Development Journal,

31(1), pp.39–56.

Ewenstein, B., Wesley, S. & Sologar, A., 2016. McKinsey

On Organization Culture and Change, Available at:

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Busine

ss Functions/Organization/Our Insights/McKinsey on

Organization/McKinsey-on-Organization-Culture-and-

Change.ashx.

Fiedler, S., 2010. Managing resistance in an organizational

transformation: A case study from a mobile operator

company. International Journal of Project

Management, 28(4), pp.370–383. Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.004.

Gawke, J.C., Gorgievski, M.J. & Bakker, A.B., 2017.

Employee intrapreneurship and work engagement: A

latent change score approach. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 100, pp.88–100.

Giangreco, A. & Peccei, R., 2005. The nature and

antecedents of middle manager resistance to change:

Evidence from an Italian context. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(10),

pp.1812–1829.

Geldenhuys, M., Laba, K., & Venter, C. M., 2014.

Meaningful work, work engagement and

organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial

Psychology, 40(1), 01-10.

Grama, B., & Todericiu, R., 2016. Change, resistance to

change and organizational cynicism. Studies in

Business and Economics, 11(3), 47-54.

Harich, J., 2010. Change resistance as the crux of the

environmental sustainability problem. System

Dynamics Review, 26, pp.35–72.

Heikkilä, J. et al., 2018. Means to survive disruption:

Business model innovation and strategic continuity

management? Digital Transformation – Meeting the

Testing the Mediating Role of Work Engagement in the Relationship between Resistance to Change and Affective Commitment to Change

157

challenges, pp.561–576. Available at:

http://press.um.si/index.php/ump/catalog/book/343.

Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J.P., 2002. Commitment to

organizational change: Extension of a three-

component model. Journal of Applied Psychology,

87(3), pp.474–487.

Jaros, S., 2010. Commitment to organizational change: A

critical review. Journal of Change Management,

10(1), pp.79–108.

Kagermann, H., 2015. Change through digitization—

Value creation in the age of Industry 4.0. In

Management of permanent change, pp.23–45.

Kasali, R., 2017. Meluruskan pemahaman soal disruption.

Available at:

https://ekonomi.kompas.com/read/2017/05/05/073000

626/meluruskan.pemahaman.soal.disruption.

[Accessed February 10, 2019].

Lockwood, N.R., 2007. Leveraging Employee

Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s

Strategic Role (SHRM Research Quarterly). SHRM

Research Quarterly, 2007(1). Available at:

http://www.shrm.org/research/articles/articles/docume

nts/07marresearchquarterly.pdf.

Mabin, V.J. & Zealand, N., 2009. Harnessing resistance :

using the theory of constraints to assist change

management The Authors. Journal of European

Industrial Training, pp.1–29.

Mangundjaya, W., 2014. The Role of employee

engagement on the commitment to change (during

large-scale organizational change in Indonesia).

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Thought,

4(October), pp.375–384.

Mangundjaya, W.L., 2016. Perubahan dalam perubahan

organisasi, Jakarta: Swasthi Adi Cita.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. & Smith, C.A., 1993.

Commitment to Organizations and Occupations :

Extension and Test of a. , 78(4), pp.538–551.

Morin, A.J.S. et al., 2016. Longitudinal associations

between employees’ beliefs about the quality of the

change management process, affective commitment to

change and psychological empowerment. Human

Relations, 69(3), pp.839–867.

Oreg, S., 2003. Resistance to change: Developing an

individual differences measure. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(4), pp.680–693.

Pakdel, A., 2016. An Investigation of the Difference in the

Impact of Demographic Variables on Employees’

Resistance to Organizational Change in Government

Organizations of Khorasan Razavi. Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 230(May), pp.439–446.

Available at:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S18770428

16311569.

Perren, L., Lecturer, P. & Development, M., 2005.

Resistance to change as a positive force : its dynamics

and issues for management development. Career

Development International, 1(4), pp.24–28.

Ritz, A. et al., 2012. Who Needs Leaders the Most? The

Interactive Effect of Leadership and Core Self-

Evaluations on Commitment to Change in the Public

Sector. International Public Management Journal,

15(2), pp.160–185.

Schaufeli, W. & Bakker, A., 2004. Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale (UWES): Preliminary manual,

Version, 1. , (December).

Shah, N., Irani, Z. & Sharif, A.M., 2017. Big data in an

HR context: Exploring organizational change

readiness, employee attitudes and behaviors. Journal

of Business Research, 70, pp.366–378. Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.010.

Strom, D.L., Sears, K.L. & Kelly, K.M., 2014. Work

Engagement: The Roles of Organizational Justice and

Leadership Style in Predicting Engagement Among

Employees. Journal of Leadership and Organizational

Studies, 21(1), pp.71–82.

Syahmi, A. et al., 2017. Journal of Management and

marketing review resistance to change (RTC): A

taxonomical perspective. J. Mgt. Mkt. Review, 2(3),

pp.116–122.

Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., & Sajilan, S., 2017. Testing and

controlling for common method variance: a review of

available methods. Journal of Management

Sciences, 4(2), 142-168.

Uddin, M.A., Mahmood, M. & Fan, L., 2018. Why

individual employee engagement matters for team

performance? Team Performance Management: An

International Journal, p.TPM-12-2017-0078.

Available at:

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.1108/TPM-

12-2017-0078.

Van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B.S. & Groeneveld, S., 2016.

Implementing Change in Public Organizations: The

relationship between leadership and affective

commitment to change in a public sector context.

Public Management Review, 18(6), pp.842–865.

Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1045020.

Vogelgesang, G.R., Leroy, H. & Avolio, B.J., 2013. The

mediating effects of leader integrity with transparency

in communication and work engagement/performance.

Leadership Quarterly, 24(3), pp.405–413. Available

at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.004.

Yalabik, Z.Y. et al., 2015. Engaged and committed? The

relationship between work engagement and

commitment in professional service firms.

International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 26(12), pp.1602–1621.

Yilmaz, D. & Kiliçoğlu, G., 2013. Resistance to change

and ways of reducing resistance in educational

organizations. European Journal of Research on

Education, 1(1), pp.14–21. Available at:

http://iassr.org/journal.

Zander, A., 1950. Resistance to change—its analysis and

prevention. Advanced Management Journal, 15, pp.9–

11.

ICIB 2019 - The 2nd International Conference on Inclusive Business in the Changing World

158