# Meeting the challenges of effective readiness for change
in a global context

Karim Saïd, Soufiane Kherrazi, Lars Gottschling-Knudsen

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Karim Saïd, Soufiane Kherrazi, Lars Gottschling-Knudsen. Meeting the challenges of effective readiness for change in a global context. European Academy of Management Conference (EURAM), Jun 2024, Bath (UK), United Kingdom. hal-04979763

HAL Id: hal-04979763

https://hal.science/hal-04979763v1

Submitted on 6 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Meeting the challenges of effective readiness for change in
a global context

Karim Saïd, University Paris-Saclay - UVSQ, LAREQUOI Research Center, France

Soufiane Kherrazi, CESI Engineering School, LINEACT Laboratory, France

Lars Gottschling-Knudsen, VIA University College, VIA Faculty of Continuing Education, Denmark

## 1. Research gap and question

This paper aims to examine primarily the readiness for change based on individual perceptions that not only allow to make sense of the environment (Wenzel, Krämer, Koch, & Reckwitz, 2020) but can be a powerful driver to understand how individuals understand and engage with the future in their organization. By engaging in sensemaking activities, individuals connect the past and present to the future which will determine their readiness for change, i.e., the extent to which they are behaviorally and psychologically prepared to respond properly and promptly to a change (Ruest et al., 2019; Said and Nair, 2021). Our research contributes with a novel perspective and unveils how employees' cultural background can influence their perceptions of change context and process as well as their individual readiness to change.

In this regard, we propose to examine the impact of cultural factors on employees' perception of change factors and readiness for change. In doing so, the study considers a micro perspective of readiness for change in response to Ruest et al.'s call (2019) and many other authors' recommendations (Said and Kherrazi, in press; Said and Nair, 2021; Soumyaja et al., 2015).

Considering that the path toward the successful implementation of any change project is highly contingent on personal disposition to change, this research uncovers the impact of employees' cultural background. It sheds light on cultural factors, in a cross-cultural setting, that managers should consider when implementing organizational changes. In doing so, it contributes to a better understanding of employees' attitudes towards organizational change, i.e., their perceptions of change context, change process as well as their readiness for change.

## 2. Theoretical background and research hypotheses

In response to the newly emerged discussion about corporate sustainability management, the literature of organizational change management appears to have identified the topic of organizational culture as explanatory starting point for further discussions (Li & Liu, 2022; Miller, 2023; Payne et al., 2023; Samal et al., 2021; Wijethilake et al., 2023). One of the
challenges for modern organizations has become the imperative to adapt to new organizational and leadership practices such as ethical change management as well as implementing innovative, organizational changes with help of change projects in response to the new demands of i.e. corporate sustainability management (Keček, 2023; Li & Liu, 2022; Payne et al., 2023; Rass et al., 2023; Schoper et al., 2018). The necessity to change organizations sheds light especially onto the human perspective to enable change (Kezar et al., 2023; Li & Liu, 2022; Rass et al., 2023). Thus, human-driven change and personal, cultural predisposition towards dealing with organizational change becomes even more relevant to decode modern change management practices. Therefore, it appears to be important to understand how cultural background can affect people's behaviours and attitudes towards changes in a globalized business setting (Payne et al., 2023; Rass et al., 2023; Schoper et al., 2018) Thus, beliefs and intentions (Bouckenoogh et. al., 2009) as well as culture (Brewster et al., 2018) and nationality (Hertlein, 2021; Saïd and Nair, 2021) may influence employee's behavioral support towards organizational change (Allaoui and Benmoussa, 2020).

In this perspective, Hwang (2015) highlights that cross-cultural management studies have concluded that if some managerial modes seem to be effective across cultures, others would need to be adjusted to the local cultures to be successful (House, 2006). For instance, while previous studies supported the positive impact of (internal) change context (i.e., the way change is perceived in terms of organizational climate and trust) on readiness for change (Soumyaja et al., 2018), Saïd and Nair (2021) found that employee's perceptions of (internal) change context do not affect their readiness for change. Then, change context can be perceived differently depending on the employee's cultural background. The same reasoning could apply to change process (i.e., the way change is implemented and dealt with). Muczyk and Reimann (1987) argue that the effectiveness of participation (i.e., the degree to which employees are involved in the work-related decisions) and direction (i.e., the amount of follow-up or directive behavior regarding the execution of a decision) vary from one culture to another. In the same line of thought, Dorfiorman et al. (2012) found that the directive leadership style showed positive effects on the satisfaction and commitment of employees in Taiwan and Mexico, while the participative leadership style showed a positive impact only in the United States and South Korea.

Relying on several studies conducted in different regions of the world such as Europe (Saïd and Nair, 2021; Saïd and Kherrazi, in press), the Arabian Gulf region (Kemp and Williams 2013), Asia (Chen, Watkins, and Martin, 2013), and Africa (Cronjé, 2011), cultural background can
affect change mechanisms and practices (Mockaitis, Rose, and Zettinig, 2012; Zander and
Butler, 2010).

Therefore, five cultural factors were considered within this regard to examine their effect on
employees' perceptions of change context and process, and readiness for change. We used
employee's cultural identification, employee's cultural orientation and employee's nationality.
Following Hofstede's work (1976, 1980), cultural identification comprised two dimensions:
global (global culture and attachment to universal values) and local identification (local culture
and attachment to local-based values), whereas cultural orientation included three dimensions:
power acceptance, uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation. Employee's nationality
was captured through the country of origin. As our sample involved many nationalities, we
grouped them into five clusters following the framework of Ronen and Shenkar (1985, p.449)
when applicable<fnref n="1" />. This yielded to the following regions: Anglo Saxon region (USA, Canada,
UK, etc.), North Europe (Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, etc.), Latin Europe (France, Italy
and Spain), Arabian region (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.), and Far East Asian region
(India, China, South Korea, etc.)<fnref n="2" />. These clusters are deemed to share common beliefs, values,
language or religion that are handed down from one generation to the next.

We then posited the following hypotheses based on related theoretical developments:

Cultural identification

* H1.1 The positive impact of employees' global identification is greater on the change process than on the change context

* H1.2 The positive impact of employees' local identification is greater on the change context than on the change process

Cultural orientation

* H2.1 The negative impact of employees' power acceptance is greater on the change process than on the change context

* H2.2 The positive impact of employees' uncertainty avoidance is greater on the change process than on the change context

* H2.3 The positive impact of employees' long term vision is greater on the change process than on the change context

Nationality

* H3 Employees' nationality affects their perception of change context (H3.1) and process (H3.2)

Readiness for change :

* H4 Change context (H4.1) and process (H4.2) are positively related to employees' readiness for change

<footnote n="1">¹ Only a few African countries were included in this framework.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² We indicated the main countries represented by region.</footnote>
### 3. Method

This research is based on a quantitative survey of 310 executives from Anglo Saxon countries (USA, Canada, UK, etc.), North Europe (Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, etc.), Latin Europe (France, Italy and Spain), Arabian region (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.), and Far East Asian region (India, China, South Korea, etc.).

<table><caption>Table I. Demographic characteristics of the sample</caption><thead><tr><th>Demographics</th><th>Levels</th><th>Percentage</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Gender</td><td>Male</td><td>64.52%</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>35.48%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Hierarchical position</td><td>Top Management</td><td>3.22%</td></tr><tr><td>Senior manager</td><td>7.74%</td></tr><tr><td>Middle manager</td><td>20.02%</td></tr><tr><td>Employee</td><td>53.54%</td></tr><tr><td>Apprentice</td><td>15.48%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Nationality</td><td>Anglo Saxon</td><td>4.21%</td></tr><tr><td>North Europe</td><td>36.77%</td></tr><tr><td>Latin Europe</td><td>24.19%</td></tr><tr><td>Arab</td><td>11.93%</td></tr><tr><td>Far East Asia</td><td>22.90%</td></tr></tbody></table>

To avoid common method biases, we followed some of Podsakoff *et al.*'s recommendations (2003) regarding the questionnaire construction as well as statistical tests to control for such possible biases. The measurement items of our variables were adopted from literature (Bouckenooghe *et al.*, (2009), Soumyaja et al., (2015), Gigliotti et al., (2019) and Saïd and Nair (2021; Said and Kherrazi, in press). In addition, we controlled for gender and (hierarchical) position of respondents.

<table><caption>Table II. Reliability and Convergent and discriminant Validity of constructs</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Alpha</th><th>AVE</th><th>Readiness</th><th>Process</th><th>Global</th><th>Local</th><th>Context</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Readiness</th><td>0.908</td><td>0,628</td><td><strong>0,793</strong></td><td>0,39</td><td>0,216</td><td>0,186</td><td>0,401</td></tr><tr><th>Process</th><td>0.844</td><td>0,575</td><td>0,39</td><td><strong>0,758</strong></td><td>0,293</td><td>0,224</td><td>0,563</td></tr><tr><th>Global</th><td>0.851</td><td>0,628</td><td>0,216</td><td>0,293</td><td><strong>0,792</strong></td><td>0,282</td><td>0,163</td></tr><tr><th>Local</th><td>0.843</td><td>0,595</td><td>0,186</td><td>0,224</td><td>0,282</td><td><strong>0,771</strong></td><td>0,102</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Context</td><td>0.889</td><td>0,652</td><td>0,401</td><td>0,563</td><td>0,163</td><td>0,102</td><td><strong>0,807</strong></td></tr></table>

We then used SPSS for confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and the macro process regression procedure (Hayes, 2022) for hypothesis testing.

## 4. Key findings

With regard to cultural identification, the employees' global identification affects more positively their perception of change process as compared to their perception of change context as suggested by hypothesis H1.1. However, the positive impact of employees' local identification is also more pronounced and significant on the change process than on the change context. This does not give support to hypothesis H1.2.

Regarding cultural orientations, the findings show a negative impact of employees' power acceptance on both change context and process. In addition, this impact is found to be stronger on employees' perception of process than their perception of context, supporting hypothesis H2.1. The employees' uncertainty avoidance seems to affect negatively change context and process. However, its impact on change process is significant. Thus, hypothesis H2.2 is not accepted. As posited by hypothesis H2.3, the positive impact of employees' long term vision is significant for change process as compared to change context. With regard to nationality, the results don't show any significant impact of change context and process. We conclude there is no clear evidence in favor of H3.

<table><caption>Table III : Model estimations for cultural factors and change factors</caption><thead><tr><th>90% Conf.<br>Bootstrap<br>5000</th><th colspan="4">Model 1</th><th colspan="4">Model 2</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="4">Context</th><th colspan="4">Process</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>β</th><th>p</th><th>lower</th><th>Upper</th><th>R</th><th>β</th><th>P</th><th>lower</th><th>upper</th><th>R</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Local</td><td>.099</td><td>.08</td><td>.006</td><td>.193</td><td>.146*</td><td>.222</td><td>.000</td><td>.131</td><td>.314</td><td>0.255*</td></tr><tr><td>Power</td><td>-</td><td>.015</td><td>-.186</td><td>-.036</td><td>.174*</td><td>-.266</td><td>.000</td><td>-.288</td><td>-.142</td><td>.294*</td></tr><tr><td>acceptance</td><td>.137</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Global</td><td>.164</td><td>.004</td><td>.072</td><td>.275</td><td>.196*</td><td>.294</td><td>.000</td><td>.205</td><td>.384</td><td>.320*</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Uncertainty avoidance</td><td>.078</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long term vision</td><td>.042</td><td>.461</td><td>-.054</td><td>.141</td><td>.115</td><td>.097</td><td>.09</td><td>.003</td><td>.197</td><td>.158*</td></tr><tr><td>Nationality (reg1)</td><td>.153</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nationality (reg2)</td><td>.145</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nationality (reg3)</td><td>.012</td><td>.968</td><td>-.503</td><td>.528</td><td>.128</td><td>-.183</td><td>.556</td><td>-.695</td><td>.329</td><td>.173</td></tr><tr><td>Nationality (reg4)</td><td>.016</td><td>.962</td><td>-.535</td><td>.567</td><td>.128</td><td>-.365</td><td>.273</td><td>-.912</td><td>.183</td><td>.173</td></tr><tr><td>Nationality (reg5)</td><td>.132</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

Reported coefficients are standardized coefficient (β)

The results of hypothesis H4 confirm the positive and significant effect of employees' perception of change context and process on their readiness for change.

Furthermore, the results suggest also that cultural factors don't impact directly employees' readiness for change. To further explore these findings, we conducted an *ad hoc* analysis to assess the indirect effect of cultural factors. The results confirm our assertion that cultural factors impact indirectly, through change context and process perceptions, employees' readiness for change. These indirect effects are confirmed for all cultural factors, except for nationality and uncertainty avoidance, which do not show any effect on either the change context and process or employees' readiness for change.

<table><caption>Table IV: Model estimations for change factors and readiness for change</caption><tr><td>90% Conf.</td><td>Model 3</td></tr><tr><td>Bootstrap 5000</td><td>Readiness</td></tr></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>β</th><th>p</th><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Context</td><td>.248</td><td>.000</td><td>.146</td><td>.350</td></tr><tr><td>Process</td><td>.206</td><td>.002</td><td>.096</td><td>.316</td></tr><tr><td>Local</td><td>.085</td><td>.115</td><td>-.004</td><td>.174</td></tr><tr><td>Power acceptance</td><td>.024</td><td>.652</td><td>-.052</td><td>.091</td></tr><tr><td>Global</td><td>.074</td><td>.186</td><td>-.018</td><td>.166</td></tr><tr><td>Uncertainty avoidance</td><td>-.004</td><td>.944</td><td>-.079</td><td>.072</td></tr><tr><td>Long term vision</td><td>.065</td><td>.227</td><td>-.024</td><td>.158</td></tr><tr><td>Nationality (reg1)</td><td>-.026</td><td>.955</td><td>-.800</td><td>.747</td></tr><tr><td>Nationality (reg2)</td><td>-.310</td><td>.261</td><td>-.765</td><td>.145</td></tr><tr><td>Nationality (reg3)</td><td>-.042</td><td>.881</td><td>-.499</td><td>.416</td></tr><tr><td>Nationality (reg4)</td><td>-.170</td><td>.567</td><td>-.661</td><td>.320</td></tr><tr><td>Nationality (reg5)</td><td>-.051</td><td>.859</td><td>-.525</td><td>.423</td></tr><tr><td>Position</td><td>.064</td><td>.231</td><td>-.026</td><td>.165</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>-.107</td><td>.050</td><td>-.397</td><td>-.035</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" style="text-align: right;">R .510 - p .000</td></tr></tbody></table>

Reported coefficients are standardized coefficient (β)

## 5. Discussion & Conclusion

Our results tend to highlight that nationality seems to be of less value in predicting individual perceptions of their organizational context and their readiness for change than cultural values and background. Consistent with our work, McSweeney's (2013) underline that country of residence does not equal culture and have proved that the link was rather weak overall, and much weaker than that with other factors such as demographic and environmental factors.
In this regard, Gerhart and Fang (2005) found that country of residence explains only 1–7 % of variance in responses to survey questions that were used to operationalize cultural values based on Hofstede’s framework (1980).

Our findings show that cultural factors and not nationality impact indirectly through change context and process perceptions employees’ readiness for change. Cultural differences among countries (Inglehart and Welzel 2005; Ralston et al. 1997) seem to be blurred by globalization. We share the view of Tarras and al (2016) who consider that cultural values can include factors other than geography and can include personal orientations based on individual thoughts, feelings and trajectory. Regardless of the cultural differences, our findings confirm that employees’ perception of change context and process can be powerful drivers on their readiness for change. The successful implementation of any change project is highly contingent on personal disposition to change, our research uncovers the potential impact of individual perceptions on their readiness for change (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Soumyaja et al., 2015, Gigliotti et al., 2018).

## 6. References

Allaoui, A; Benmoussa, R (2020), *Journal of Organizational Change Management*, Volume 33, Number 2, 2020, pp. 253-288(36)Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., &amp; Van den Broeck, H. (2009). "Organizational change questionnaire-climate of change, process and readiness: development of a new instrument". *Journal of Psychology*, Vol 143, No 6, pp 559-599Brewster, C., Mayrhofer W, (Eds). (2012). *A Handbook of Research into Comparative Human Resource Management Practice*. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W., Farndale, E. (2018). *Handbook of research on comparative human resource management*, (2nd edition). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Choi M., Ruona W, (2011). "Individual Readiness for Organisational change and its implications for Human Resource and Organisation Development", *Human Resource Development Review*, 10(1), p 46-73.

Dorfman, P., Lavidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty-year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. *Journal of World Business*, 47, 504-518.

Farndale, E., Sanders, K., (2017). "Conceptualising) HRM system strength through a cross-cultural lens" *International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 28(1), 132–148.

Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2005). National culture and human resource management: assumptions and evidence. *International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 16(6), 971–986.

Gigliotti, R. Vardaman, J. Marshall, D. R. and Gonzalez, K. (2018). The role of perceived organisational support in individual change readiness. *Journal of Change Management*, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 86–100.

Hertlein K.M. (2021), "Technology in Relationships and Satisfaction: Nationality as a Moderator", *International Journal of Systemic Therapy*, 32:3, 229-244.
House, R. J. (2006). *Culture, leadership, and organizations : the GLOBE study of 62 societies.* Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Huang X, Van de Vliert E. (2006). "Job formalisation and cultural individualism as barriers to trust in management", *International Journal of Cross-cultural management*, Vol 6, 221-242Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: the human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kirrane, M., Lennon, M., O'Connor, C., & Fu, N. (2017). Linking perceived management support with employees' readiness for change: The mediating role of psychological capital. *Journal of Change Management*, 17(1), 47-66.

Keček, D. (2023). Implementation Of Organizational Changes According To The Mckinsey 7S Model. [Article]. *Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results, 14*(4), 524. https://doi.org/10.47750/pnr.2023.14.04.64

Kezar, A., Holcombe, E., Harper, J., & Ueda, N. (2023). *Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning* ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vchn20 Culture Change Requires Personal and Organizational Changes: Lessons from the Shared Equity Leadership Model. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2023.2151806

Li, Z., & Liu, L. (2022). The impact of organizational innovation culture on employees' innovation behavior. *Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 50*(12), 1-10. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=160622559&site=ehost-live

McSweeney, B. (2013). Fashion founded on a flaw: the ecological mono-deterministic fallacy of Hofstede, GLOBE, and followers. *International Marketing Review*, *30*(5), 483-504.

Miller, F. A. (2023). It is Time for Organizations to Take a Leap Forward. [Article]. *Organization Development Journal*, *41*(3), 8.

Muczyk J.P., Reimann B.C. (1987) "The case for directive leadership", *The Academy of Management Executive*, 1, p 301-311.

Payne, D., Trumbach, C., & Soharu, R. (2023). The Values Change Management Cycle: Ethical Change Management. *Journal of Business Ethics, 188*, 429-440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05306-8

Pudelko M. Reich B.S., CARR C. (2015), "Recent developments and emerging challenges in international human resource management", *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, Vol 26 (2), 127-135

Ralston, D. A., Holt, D. H., Terpstra, R. H., & Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997). The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. *Journal of International Business Studies*, *28*(1), 177-207.

Rass, L., Treur, J., Kucharska, W., & Wiewiora, A. (2023). Adaptive dynamical systems modelling of transformational organizational change with focus on organizational culture and organizational learning. *Cognitive Systems Research, 79*, 85-108.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). *Diffusion of innovations* (5th ed.). New York: Free press.

Roos, R., Nilsson, V. O. (2020), "Driving Organizational Readiness for Change through Strategic Workshops", *International Journal of Management and Applied Research*, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-28.

Saïd, K., Nair, A. S. (2021). "An International Comparison of Enablers of Individual Readiness for Change: The Case of Executives Working in France, GCC and India", *Management international, 25*(3), 220-232.

Saïd, K., Kherrazi, S. "Perceptual drivers for individual readiness for change in question", Management & Prospective (Gestion 2000), in press

Samal, A., Patra, S., & Chatterjee, D. (2021). Impact of culture on organizational readiness to change: context of bank M&A. *Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28*(5), 1503-1523. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2019-0454
Schoper, Y.-G., Wald, A., Ingason, H. T., & Fridgeirsson, T. V. (2018). Projectification in Western economies: A comparative study of Germany, Norway and Iceland [Article]. *International Journal of Project Management*, 36(1), 71–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.008

Schoper, Y. G., Wald, A., Ingason, H. T., & Fridgeirsson, T. V. (2018). “Projectification in Western economies: A comparative study of Germany, Norway and Iceland”. *International Journal of Project Management*, 36(1), 71–82.

Soumyaja, D. Kamalanabhan, T. J. and Bhattacharyya, S. (2018). Antecedents of employee readiness for change in the IT sector and the manufacturing sector: A comparative study. *International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management*, Vol. 18, No. 3–4, pp.237–256.

Taras, V., Steel, P., Kirkman B.L. (2016). "Does Country Equate with Culture? Beyond Geography in the Search for Cultural Boundaries", *Management International Review*, 56, 455–487

Vakola, M. (2013). Multilevel readiness to organisational change: A conceptual approach multilevel readiness to organisational change: A conceptual approach. *Journal of Change Management*, Vol. 13, No. 10, pp. 96–109.

Wardania R, Ekowatib D., Usmanc I, Suhariadid F., Suhandiahe S., (2020) " A Review: Readiness for Change towards Organisational Change", *International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change*, Volume 13, Issue 12.

Wenzel, M., Krämer, H., Koch, J., & Reckwitz, A. (2020). Future and organization studies: On the rediscovery of a problematic temporal category in organizations. *Organization Studies*, 41 (10), 1441-1455.

Wijethilake, C., Upadhaya, B., & Lama, T. (2023). The role of organisational culture in organisational change towards sustainability: evidence from the garment manufacturing industry. *Production Planning and Control*, 34(3), 275–294.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1913524