Hussain, Syed Talib et al.
Article
Kurt Lewin's change model: A critical review of the
role of leadership and employee involvement in
organizational change
Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK)
Provided in Cooperation with:
Elsevier
Suggested Citation: Hussain, Syed Talib et al. (2018) : Kurt Lewin's change model: A critical review of
the role of leadership and employee involvement in organizational change, Journal of Innovation &
Knowledge (JIK), ISSN 2444-569X, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 3, Iss. 3, pp. 123-127,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002
This Version is available at:
https://hdl.handle.net/10419/190739
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen
Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.
Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle
Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich
machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.
Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen
(insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten,
gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort
genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.
Terms of use:
Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal
and scholarly purposes.
You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to
exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the
internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public.
If the documents have been made available under an Open Content
Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise
further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
3
(2018)
123–127
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-innovation-and-knowledge
Conceptual
paper
Kurt
Lewin’s
change
model:
A
critical
review
of
the
role
of
leadership
and
employee
involvement
in
organizational
change
Syed
Talib
Hussain
∗
,
Shen
Lei,
Tayyaba
Akram,
Muhammad
Jamal
Haider,
Syed
Hadi
Hussain,
Muhammad
Ali
Glorious
Sun
School
of
Business
and
Management,
Donghua
University,
Shanghai,
China
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
22
June
2016
Accepted
14
July
2016
Available
online
11
October
2016
Keywords:
Organizational
change
Unfreezing
Change
process
Refreezing
Employee
involvement
Knowledge
sharing
Leadership
style
Change
implementation
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
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
Espa
˜
na,
S.L.U.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY-NC-ND
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction
and
research
questions
The
purpose
of
the
study
is
to
craft
the
relation
between
process
model
and
change,
this
relation
describes
the
ways
of
implement-
ing
change
process
by
leader’s
knowledge
sharing,
and
this
sharing
identifies
the
stages
of
change
process,
and
these
stages
delin-
eate
the
functional
significance
between
organizational
change
and
change
implementation.
The
organizational
life
has
been
made
inevitable
feature
by
global,
technological
and
economic
pace,
and
many
models
of
organizational
change
have
acknowledged
the
influence
of
implicit
dimensions
at
one
stage
or
more
stages
of
orga-
nizational
change
process
(Burke,
2008;
Wilkins
&
Dyer,
1988),
and
these
models
imitate
different
granular
levels
affecting
the
pro-
cess
of
organizational
change,
and
each
level
of
them
identifies
distinctive
change
implementation
stages
(By,
2005).
A
model
of
organizational
change
in
Kurt
Lewin’s
three
steps
change
process
context
was
introduced
in
this
study;
which
reflects
momentous
stages
in
change
implementation
process.
Kurt
Lewin’s
model
is
the
early
fundamental
planned
change
models
explaining
the
striv-
ing
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
(S.T.
Hussain).
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
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002
2444-569X/©
2016
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge.
Published
by
Elsevier
Espa
˜
na,
S.L.U.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY-NC-ND
license
(http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
).
124
S.T.
Hussain
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
3
(2018)
123–127
(Cummings
&
Worley,
2003).
The
organization
may
have
invested
heavily
for
status
quo;
subsequently
resisting
change
will
take
place
to
avoid
uncertain
future
of
organization.
Consequently,
the
nec-
essary
actions
are
to
be
taken
to
motivate
employees.
For
this
purpose,
the
study
explores
the
loop
of
organizational
change
pro-
cess
through
a
series
of
events,
which
focuses
on
fundamental
steps
taken
for
implementation
of
change.
The
model
has
been
catego-
rized
into
loops
of
leadership,
management
and
organization.
This
process
is
being
initiated
through
Lewin’s
(1947)
three
steps
change
model
denoting
the
step
by
step
phases
of
unfreezing,
changing
and
refreezing,
so
employees
are
being
involved
and
instructed
by
leaders
regarding
the
issues
related
to
change
process
(Porras
&
Robertson,
1992).
This
subsequence
process
of
change
elabo-
rates
the
varying
outline
sequence
upon
the
essential
stages
of
change
(Bate,
Khan,
&
Pye,
2000).
The
reprisal
in
the
process
Burke
(2008)
and
Whelan-Berry,
Gordon,
and
Hinings
(2003)
underlined
the
importance
of
leadership
before
launching
each
phase
at
each
stage
of
change.
The
leader’s
ethicality
may
be
one
of
the
most
important
sources
for
change
from
employees
as
Durand
and
Calori
(2006)
stated
the
ethics
of
leadership
in
change
process.
Yet,
this
study
does
not
examine
explicitly
the
role
of
leadership
ethics
or
importance
in
spontaneous
undergoing
change
process
(Armenakis
&
Harris,
2009).
In
this
study
the
organizational
change
will
be
referred
as
planned
change.
In
context
of
process
model
of
change,
the
culture
has
been
recognized
by
theorists
as
moderator
for
organizational
change.
As
Burke
(2008)
identified
the
Burke-Litwin
model
from
different
process
theorists
for
the
culture
of
organizational
change.
Organizational
change
and
Lewin’s
model
“unfreezing”
Change
management
defined
by
Moran
and
Brightman
(2001)
as
‘the
process
of
continually
renewing
an
organization’s
direction,
structure,
and
capabilities
to
serve
the
ever
changing
needs
of
exter-
nal
and
internal
customers’.
Changing
does
not
depend
on
size
and
age
but
occurs
thoroughly
in
all
businesses.
The
world
changes
very
fast,
so
the
organizations
must
have
to
be
changed
quickly
for
the
development
and
surviving
of
the
organization
(Alvesson
&
Sveningsson,
2008).
The
Models
and
theories
have
been
pro-
posed
for
driving
changes
in
organization
for
managers
and
leaders
to
monitor,
evaluate
and
plan
changes
using
structure
for
quick
response
to
the
internal
or
external
environment
and
foresee
the
pattern
of
change
by
individuals,
products,
technology
and
market
(
Van
Ossten,
2006).
As
stated
by
Glieck
(1987)
that
organizational
change
is
a
kind
of
chaos,
so
number
of
variables
are
changing,
the
environment
changing,
frequent
change
and
resistant
to
change
create
confluence
of
change
process
at
the
same
time,
that
not
only
stimulates
difficulties
in
prediction
but
also
make
control
impossi-
ble.
However,
the
repeatedly
research
literature,
consistently
link
different
classes
of
events
in
organizations
for
change.
A
new
model
has
to
be
built
to
describe
the
causes
of
organizational
change,
exploring
how
does
organization
functions
(i.e.,
a
leads
b),
and
causation
of
model
change
deliberately.
The
internal
and
external
environment
persuades
organizations
for
change.
Pierce,
Gardner,
and
Dunham
(2002)
stated
two
kind
of
change
in
organization,
reac-
tive
and
proactive
change.
The
reactive
change
takes
place
when
internal
or
external
forces
pressurize
the
organization
for
change
while
proactive
change
takes
place
when
the
organization
itself
concludes
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-
zation
and
environment,
which
emphasize
that
change
is
heavily
influence
by
power,
culture
and
politics.
Many
theories
have
been
propose
for
change
process
but
here
in
this
study
the
Lewin’s
three
steps
model
for
change
have
to
be
used
for
change
process.
As
the
organization
is
in
stage
of
change,
the
Kurt
Lewin’s
theory
has
been
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
S.T.
Hussain
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
3
(2018)
123–127
125
making,
information
flow
from
multilevel,
making
business
plans,
competitive
conditions,
new
technology
equipments,
work
methods,
ideas
for
organizational
improvement,
share
skill
and
expertise,
share
development
programs,
contribute
in
solving
prob-
lems
and
business
operation
(Cummings
&
Worley,
2003).
The
study
of
Wenger,
McDermott,
and
Snyder
(2002)
states,
that
knowl-
edge
sharing
is
crucial
among
individuals
of
an
organization.
Knowledge
sharing
in
organizational
resources
is
critical
for
com-
petition,
sustainability
and
dynamic
economy
(Hakanson,
1993;
Foss
&
Pedersen,
2002).
So
the
organizations
do
not
rely
on
train-
ing,
staffing
and
managing
system
only
but
also
the
knowledgeable
individuals
share
beliefs,
experiences,
skills,
competencies
and
abilities
(Ambrosini
&
Bowman,
2001;
Brown
&
Duguid,
1991).
One
thing
should
be
noted
that
how
to
transfer
the
knowledge
and
expertise
from
the
knowledgeable
experts
to
novices
who
are
in
need
to
know
(Hind,
Patterson,
&
Pfeffer,
2001).
Bordia,
Irmer,
and
Abusah
(2006)
concluded
that
knowledge
sharing
at
individual
level
was
studied
in
organization
behavior,
psychology
(Lin,
2007),
information
systems
(Wasko
&
Faraj,
2005)
and
strategic
man-
agement
(
Reagans
&
McEvily,
2003).
Knowledge
sharing
is
done
in
individual,
group
and
organizational
level
of
the
organization,
starting
at
individual
level;
simultaneously
expand
to
group
level
and
ends
at
the
organizational
level
(Bock
&
Kim,
2002)
and
this
is
explained
by
Uriarte
(2008)
as
the
framework
of
knowledge
sharing
consisting
of
three
levels
as
enablers,
levers
and
foundation.
In
the
change
process
when
employees
contribute,
the
knowl-
edge
sharing
stage
identifies
the
kind
of
knowledge
that
generates
the
value
of
organization
after
that
generating
the
mechanism
for
that
knowledge.
The
required
knowledge
is
identified
for
orga-
nizational
need
which
is
getting
from
two
sources
of
external
as
renting
or
consultancy
from
other
companies
or
share
knowl-
edge
by
internal
source
in
informal
networks
among
employees
who
have
expertise
(Wenger,
1999).
Sharing
knowledge
is
actu-
ally
the
organizational
learning
process,
which
concludes,
what
the
members
or
employees
know
about
the
organizational
products,
processes,
customers,
and
competitive
environments
of
organiza-
tion.
This
knowledge
may
be
the
explicit
knowledge
which
can
be
easily
transferred
in
documents,
databases
and
manuals
and
the
tacit
knowledge
is
the
member’s
internal
skills,
intuitions
and
memories
(Polanyi,
1995).
In
the
change
process
of
Lewin’s
three
step
model,
the
knowledge
is
codified
and
personalized.
In
codi-
fication
phase
the
knowledge
is
stored
which
would
be
used
by
appropriate
members
but
in
personalization
phase
the
knowledge
is
being
focused
that
how
to
transfer
it
from
person
to
person.
The
codification
of
knowledge
is
called
explicit
knowledge
which
can
be
easily
transferred
and
personalization
is
called
the
tacit
knowledge
which
is
not
easily
transferable.
The
given
below
model
explains
the
whole
cycle
or
process
of
organizational
change
by
applying
the
Kurt
Lewin’s
three
steps
model
(Fig.
1).
Leadership
and
Lewin’s
model
“change
process”
Leadership
has
been
defined
by
Northouse
(2004)
as
“a
process
by
which
an
individual
influences
a
group
of
individuals
to
achieve
common
goals”.
The
study
of
Cummings
and
Worley
(2003)
has
presented
five
activities
of
key
leadership
in
change
process.
The
activities
are
of
motivating
change,
creating
a
vision,
developing
political
support,
managing
the
transition
and
sustaining
momen-
tum.
The
motivating
change
and
creating
a
vision
show
to
the
unfreezing
or
current
state
of
organization
is
being
considered
for
change,
developing
political
support
and
managing
the
transition
show
the
moving
stage
of
change
and
sustaining
momentum
shows
the
implementation
and
refreezing
state
of
the
change.
In
change
process
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
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
chang
e
Knowledge sha
ring
Organizational
change
process
showing
di
fferent
stages
Change process
Fig.
1.
Model
of
organizational
change
shows
the
Kurt
Lewin’s
three
steps
model:
Note:
The
arrows
show
different
stages
of
Kurt
Lewin’s
three
steps
model
and
not
the
relationship
between
variables.
Cameron,
Dutton,
and
Quinn
(2003)
and
Lewin’s
change
model
(
Lewin,
1947).
The
Lewin’s
change
model
was
used
in
this
study
for
organizational
change
process.
As
Burnes
(2004)
identified
the
organizational
change
as
a
feature
of
organizational
life
for
strate-
gic
and
operational
level,
so
there
is
no
doubt
about
the
importance
of
change
in
organization,
and
it
to
be
executed
because,
organiza-
tion
needs
change.
The
study
of
Podsakoff,
Mackenzie,
and
Bommer
(1996)
explores
the
active
role
of
leadership
style
in
organizational
outcomes,
employee
satisfaction,
and
performance.
In
every
step
of
the
study;
the
leadership
plays
a
role
of
a
change
agent
in
the
Kurt
Lewin’s
model
to
unfreeze
the
organization.
The
transforma-
tional
leadership
style
affects
the
organizational
change
process.
In
this
type
of
leadership
style,
the
leader
coordinate
with
employ-
ees,
share
their
knowledge,
give
opportunity
in
making
decisions
in
organizational
level.
Theoretical
implications
The
findings
of
this
study
show
that
leadership
style
and
employee
involvement
in
change
is
encouraging
step
for
change
process
of
organization.
However,
the
effect
of
Kurt
Lewin’s
model
is
indirect
through
separate
phases
in
the
process.
The
transfor-
mational
leadership
style
has
been
studies
as
the
most
important
factor
for
change
process
in
prior
studies
(Gong,
Huang,
&
Farh,
2009
).
This
paper
associates
positive
impact
of
leadership
style
on
change
process.
This
study
illustrates
the
effect
of
leadership
style
in
terms
of
employee
involvement
in
change,
motivating
employee
for
change,
share
the
knowledge
at
individual
and
organizational
level
to
make
the
loop
of
the
change
process.
At
each
phase
of
the
process
model,
the
leaders
and
employees
are
considered
to
be
one
unit,
and
each
phase
will
be
shifted
to
the
next
step
of
the
Kurt
model.
Managerial
implications
Different
organizations
use
different
organizational
change
model
for
stay
in
competition
in
the
market.
Like
positive
model,
action
research
model,
Lewin’s
model,
Kanter,
Stein,
and
Jick
(1992)
,
Kotter’s
model
(1996)
and
Luecke
model
(2003)
for
organi-
zational
change.
All
of
these
studies
showed
that
leadership
is
the
key
factor
for
change
process.
The
study
indicates
the
dominant
role
of
leadership,
employee
involvement
and
sharing
knowledge
in
change
process
of
Lewin’s
model.
The
study
recommends
for
organization
to
elevate
the
awareness
of
change
and
phases
for
organization.
As
we
see
the
knowledge
sharing
is
an
important
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.
S.T.
Hussain
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
3
(2018)
123–127
127
By,
R.
T.
(2005).
Organizational
change
management:
A
critical
review.
Journal
of
Change
Management,
5,
369–380.
Cameron,
K.,
Dutton,
J.,
&
Quinn,
R.
(2003).
Positive
organizational
scholarship:
Foun-
dations
of
a
new
discipline.
New
York:
Berrett
Kohier.
Cummings,
T.,
&
Molloy,
E.
(1977).
Improving
productivity
and
the
quality
of
work
life.
New
York:
Praeger.
Cummings,
T.
G.,
&
Worley,
C.
G.
(2003).
Organization
development
and
change
(8th
ed.,
pp.
1–694).
California:
Melissa
S.
Acuna.
Durand,
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.
Foss,
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.
French,
W.
(1969).
Organization
development:
Objectives,
assumptions,
and
strate-
gies.
California
Management
Review,
12,
23–34.
Furst,
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.
Glew,
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.
Glieck,
J.
(1987).
Chaos:
Making
a
new
science.
New
York:
Viking.
Gong,
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.
Greiner,
&
Schein.
(1988).
Power
and
organization
development.
Hakanson,
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.
Higgins,
C.,
Judge,
T.
A.,
&
Ferris,
G.
R.
(2003).
Influence
tactics
and
work
outcomes:
A
meta-analysis.
Journal
of
Organizational
Behavior,
24,
89–106.
Hind,
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.
Kanter,
R.
M.
(1983).
The
change
masters.
New
York:
Simon
and
Schuster.
Kanter,
R.
M.,
Stein,
B.
A.,
&
Jick,
T.
D.
(1992).
The
challenge
of
organizational
change.
New
York:
The
Free
Press.
Kotter,
J.
P.
(1996).
Leading
change.
Boston,
MA:
Harvard
Business
School
Press.
Laura,
L.
P.,
&
Stephen,
G.
G.
(2002).
Leadership
self
efficacy
and
managers’
motivation
for
leading
change.
Journal
of
Organizational
Behavior,
23(2),
215–235.
Lewin,
K.
(1947).
Field
theory
in
social
science.
New
York:
Harper
&
Row.
Lewin’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)
Lin,
C.
P.
(2007).
To
share
or
not
to
share:
Modeling
knowledge
sharing
using
exchange
ideology
as
a
moderator.
Personnel
Review,
36(3),
457–475.
Luecke,
R.
(2003).
Managing
change
and
transition.
Boston,
MA:
Harvard
Business
School
Press.
Mathieu,
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.
Moran,
J.
W.,
&
Brightman,
B.
K.
(2001).
Leading
organizational
change.
Career
Devel-
opment
International,
6(2),
111–118.
Morgan,
D.
E.,
&
Zeffane,
R.
(2003).
Employee
involvement,
organizational
change
and
trust
in
management.
International
Journal
of
Human
Resource
Management,
14(1),
55–75.
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-
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
change.
Academy
of
Management
Review,
13,
522–533.
