Executive Summary
Business entities rely on the power of change management to get rid of old practices and introduce new ones depending on the existing forces. From the beginning of 2020, many companies began to undertake numerous transformations due to the challenges of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Governments and health departments implemented lockdown and movement control measures to reduce infections. Most of the implemented changes in leading corporations resulted in new job responsibilities, organizational processes, and hierarchies. The important aim was to ensure that such enterprises remained relevant and profitable amidst the negative impacts of the pandemic. The emergence of remote work models became a common feature for many companies. However, a new change is needed at Google LLC to improve performance and sustain service delivery. Such a transformation informed by Kotter’s 8-Step Model and effective leadership approaches would be appropriate for this corporation to get rid of the purely remote work model and eventually achieve its goals.
Google LLC: Planning Strategic Change
Google LLC, a multinational technology corporation, offers high-quality products and services that transform the experiences of Internet users. Some of the leading offers include software, a search engine, advertising platforms, hardware, and cloud computing (Klinefelter and Wrigley, 2021). A unique business model exists that allows stakeholders to be involved in decision-making and change imresearchplementation (Osborne and Hammoud, 2017). The organization supports new researches to deliver additional technologies and Internet-based services that can improve human life. However, COVID-19 presented numerous challenges that resulted in new work arrangements and strategies for meeting customers’ needs (Wu, Chen and Chan, 2020). The proposed change revolves around promoting a hybrid work plan that can help improve its competitiveness.
The concept of strategic change guides organizations to achieve their potential through continuous transformations. This initiative allows companies to embrace new states and actions that are in line with the established work environment, human resources, and business model (Lee and Tipoe, 2021). At Google LLC, a new change is needed to ensure that future aims are realized (Vaitkūnaitė, Beniušis and Jurčys, 2021). The leaders at this multinational corporation will need to liaise with each other, monitor the trends recorded internationally, and identify new ways of improving performance (Tran, 2017). Fortunately, business leaders can select the most appropriate models from the existing theories to implement change more efficiently and guide the corporation to achieve its goals.
The first model that remains critical for supporting change is Kurt Lewin’s theory. This framework presents three unique phases, namely unfreeze, change, and refreeze (see Fig. 1). The involved team members begin by educating all followers in a given organization about the need for change (Hussain et al., 2018). At Google LLC, employees can acknowledge that the impacts of COVID-19 continue to disorient the organization’s performance (Zhou and Kan, 2021). The promoted remote work arrangements appear to be lessening productivity, innovativeness, and profitability (Deborah, 2018). This knowledge will also guide the project leader to introduce the change after the individuals appreciate its necessin introducingity (Gupta and Bisht, 2020). Finally, the theory encourages those involved to solidify the new practices and deliver timely results (Hussain et al., 2018). Unfortunately, Lewin’s framework might not be the best option for an international corporation operating globally.
The second theory that Google’s leaders can consider to introduce change is Kotter’s 8-Step Model. This framework presents 8 phases that can guide employers in understanding the demands of their respective companies and workers. The framework touches most of the critical areas that are directly linked to the current problem (Felipe et al., 2017). The model guides those in power to create the need for transformation, select competent pioneers or leaders for change, establish the most appropriate vision for the company, and communicate such goals to all followers (Warrick, 2017). The next steps outlined in the model include the identification and removal of all potential barriers, creating timely wins, and finally building desirable momentum (Shen, Gao and Yang, 2017). The implementation of these tactics at Google can result in a better work arrangement while improving the overall nature of the corporation’s culture.
From the outlined examples, it is notable that the two approaches for pursuing and implementing strategic change differ in various ways. For instance, Kurt Lewin’s theory is shallow and only offers three phases for pursing transformation. Consequently, it would only be appropriate for a small firm with a sizeable number of workers (Martin, 2017). On the other hand, Kotter’s approach delivers 8 steps that allow organizational leaders to engage more followers and other key stakeholders. Each of the 8 steps is designed to guide workers towards the anticipated change (Rybnicek et al., 2019). The other difference is that Kotter’s model goes further to identify additional opportunities for communicating to all players and ensuring that they are ready to support the initiative (Suddaby and Foster, 2017). The end result is that the identified company will change the intended aspect and eventually become more competitive.
Despite these differences, each of the models can work effectively to support organizational change. For example, Apple Incorporation stands out as a successful company that has in the past adopted Kotter’s model to implement change efficiently. The model has helped improve organizational culture and introduce new ways for pursuing business aims. This framework is, therefore, relevant for promoting strategic change because it is simple and presents new steps for overcoming all possible challenges (Kim and Choi, 2020). It is also friendly and capable of supporting conglomerates and corporations to achieve their aims (Wulandari et al., 2020). Additionally, the Boeing Company has in the past embraced specific approaches that are informed by Kurt Lewin’s theory to implement significant changes. This second example reveals that Kurt Lewin’s model is evidence-based, practical, and capable of guiding the leaders at Google LLC to implement the proposed strategic change effectively.
Identified Forces and the Need for Change
Towards the end of 2021, the global community witnessed various developments in response to COVID-19. Specifically, a new stage had come whereby more people had received vaccines against the disease causing virus. Cote (2017) observed that the number of individuals reporting cases of the disease was declining sharply. Many countries had manufactured drugs capable of minimizing the dangers of this illness. With such achievements, many companies were no longer finding the remote work program plausible or capable of delivering positive results (Donthu and Gustafsson, 2020). At Google, a new reality had dawn whereby the leaders wanted to promote a new transition in the current work program. This would be a paradigm shift from the measures that the company had promoted in response to the reported lockdown measures and the requirement for citizens to stay at home.
Currently, Google intends to introduce a new model whereby workers can visit their offices while balancing their needs. Vyas and Butakhieo (2020) indicate that a hybrid workweek pattern is essential for this corporation if it is to remain profitable. Deliberations are also ongoing at Google, whereby some key leaders are seeking office-only work. However, some skeptics have indicated that the move to compel most of the workers to return to their traditional offices might be counterproductive and eventually affect the anticipated goals (Jacks, 2021). With such consultations in place, it is quite clear that the company is unaware of the best decision or the most appropriate path to undertake (Yi, Park and Kim, 2019). The need to implement a new change exists at Google and the involvement of all key stakeholders would be critical to guarantee its triumph.
With this kind of information, it is evident that there are various forces that are impacting on this company and compelling its leaders to consider the need for transformation. First, the level of rivalry in the industry is a strong reason for Google to implement better work patterns that can ensure that desirable goals are achieved in a timely manner (Oakman et al., 2020). For instance, Cairns (2017) indicates that Google is facing stiff competition in each of its key segments. A good example is the performance of Uber, a company pursuing driverless cars that might eventually affect the future performance of Google. In the search engine category, the market shares for Bing and Yahoo! have improved significantly within the last decade to stand at 5.6 and 2.7 percent significantly (Davis, 2020). AOL has also become a leading competing since it continues to dominate in the Internet sector. With the current remote work program, Google might be unable to stay ahead of this problem and eventually lose its dominance.
Second, the global society is changing and contributing greatly to the nature of work ethics. Companies are focusing on approaches that are capable of meeting the demands of key stakeholders, such as employees. To offer the best services and labor, the workers at Google receive timely resources and insights (Knabenreich, 2021). However, the move to retain the remote work design or promote a hybrid system could trigger unique challenges at the company (Yang et al., 2022). For instance, some of the employees might be unhappy with the proposal and even decide to seek for job opportunities elsewhere (Carpenter et al., 2018). Such an outcome might affect the sustainability of this corporation and support its future goals.
Third, a global trend has emerged whereby companies are merging their work patterns with the demands of all key stakeholders. At Google, the move to promote a hybrid work process appears plausible and capable of delivering desirable results. However, the participants and leaders should consider the nature of the available technologies and their ability to support the proposed work plan. The company also has an option to promote traditional office-based whereby the workers will return back to their places (Chesser and Cullen, 2018). This move will be in response to the milestones human beings have made in an effort to deal with COVID-19. Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether each of the work models will deliver desirable outputs and eventually make the company more profitable (Methode et al., 2019). Consequently, the current issues explain why there is a need to consider a new change approach that can eventually deliver meaningful results.
Fourth, the last three years have presented worrying trends that might have long-term implications on Google. For instance, Jacks 2021) observed that the company was experiencing a high level of employee turnover. Additionally, the percent of ad rates and revenues fell sharply during the same period. Most of these threats were linked to COVID-19, the implementation response mechanisms, and the promoted work schedules and patterns. With such issues in place, it was appropriate for the organization to implement a new change that could re-pattern the existing working arrangements.
Google’s current position appears delicate despite the fact that it is a leading competitor in its industry. However, failure to consider a new workweek system for its employees could eventually trigger numerous implications. For instance, failure to consider the changes experienced in global society might compel more workers to look for better jobs elsewhere (Maharaj and Pooe, 2021). Such individuals might be in need of flexible work schedules that resonate with their goals. This means that the level of employee turnover will continue to rise steadily (Yun, Jung and Yigitcanlar, 2018). The decision by Google not to implement the intended change could make it less competitive in the near future. Most of its competitors are considering superior strategies to empower their employees, make timely changes, and offer high-quality Internet-based products that can make it easier for customers to achieve their potential.
Google LLC can overcome or avoid most of these possible challenges by analyzing the internal factors and industrial trends that relate directly to employee experience. The involvement of all key partners and stakeholders will help streamline the process and support the entire change process (Nayak, 2017). The decision to promote the intended transformation will overcome some of the identified implications and eventually make it possible for Google to reduce the impacts of the outlined problems (Bolman and Deal, 2017). Those in leadership positions need to implement the most appropriate change theory throughout the period.
Best Strategy for Change
The move by Google to consider a hybrid working patterns or arrangements presents a unique change that is capable affecting its future performance. To implement such a transformation successfully, the involved team members need to analyze the current situation and be aware of where the organization ought to be in the coming few months. Such leaders require the most appropriate strategies that can help address most of the possible barriers (Moeckel, 2017). The adopted model should be practical, capable of delivering positive results in a timely manner, and capable of delivering sustainable results (Alase, 2017). The inclusion of all key stakeholders is a critical strategy for guaranteeing success and eventually making Google more profitable.
The first theory that is capable of supporting and guiding the proposed change is Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model. Miles and Scott (2019) identify this theory as superior because it focuses on the specific individuals involved in the process. Developed by John Kotter, the framework has become a powerful approach for guiding corporations to transform their activities, introduce and support new projects, and improve overall performance. The first step of this model is the need to establish a sense of urgency (see Fig. 1). During this phase, the human resource (HR) department will inform different departments about the issues surrounding COVID-19 and why a new form of change in working arrangements would be necessary. To attract key players, the leader needs to identify the recorded gaps and offer additional insights for taking the company to the next level (Hackman, 2017). The second step is that of building a powerful coalition comprised of employees, leaders, customers, and other business partners.
The leader will move to the third step, whereby a strategic vision will become the guiding principle. For the case of Google, the followers need to understand why the company needs to go back to its competitive ways and overcome the problems arising from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (Jacks, 2021). The fourth step of this change strategy would be to get the support of every participant (Ford, Ford and Polin, 2021). The involved professionals will guide all stakeholders to understand the nature of the change and how it might support the identified vision. The fifth phase of Kotter’s model is that of enabling positive action. This outcome becomes possible when the leaders identify and address possible barriers. For this specific case, Google’s barrier could be the unwillingness of some of the employees to be part of the process.
The sixth step would be to engage in desirable actions that will help deliver short-term wins. For instance, the project leader could guide more employees to appreciate the gains the company had made during the COVID-19 era and identify how such achievements could be improved. The company can also guide employees to work on their favorite projects and activities that could help deliver better short-term wins (Green et al., 2020). The involved professionals at Google would rely on the same step to solve grievances and challenges (Debarliev, Janeska-Iliev and Ilieva, 2020). The seventh stage is the process of sustaining acceleration (see Fig. 2). This goal could be realized by presenting the required resources, empowering specific employees, and identifying what works effectively and replicating it.
After achieving the above aims, the leader will support the implementation of the targeted change. Specifically, a new working arrangement will emerge that meets the unique needs of all employees. The involvement of all employees means that the level of trust will increase, thereby empowering them to focus on possible barriers (Jensen, 2017). With this approach, all stakeholders will be part of the process and willing to provide additional insights for sustaining the change process (Kinney, 2017). The provision of the relevant resources will eventually make the change a reality, deliver desirable working arrangements and eventually make Google a leading player in its industry.
Google LLC is a big company operating in many countries across the globe. The decision to change the current working plan that many employees have been used to within the past two years will definitely attract some resistance. The occurrence of this problem means that most of the workers might be unable to support the idea, thereby affecting the anticipated organizational aims (Danny and Crosthwaite, 2021). Within the wider part of the intended change management strategy, the leaders at Google can identify competent leaders to overcome any form of resistance that might be experienced (Daft, Murphy and Willmott, 2017). As indicated earlier, the proposed work arrangement has the potential to affect the experiences of many staff members (Yuliansyah, Gurd and Mohamed, 2017). If done poorly, the company might lose some of its skilled workers to other competitors.
The outlined change model will guide those in charge of the project to unfreeze the existing practices and working arrangements. This will be followed by the introduction of the intended change (Ghazzawi, 2018). During the phase, the attributes outlined above will have been taken into consideration. The leaders will communicate to the workers continuously and seek timely support (Brock, Peak and Bunch, 2019). They will offer guidelines about the new work arrangement and how it resonates with the anticipated organizational goals (Doppelt, 2017). The final stage called refreeze, could also be merged with Kotter’s model to ensure that the introduced work program resonates with the established business model.
The Role of Leadership
The current situation at Google calls for evidence-based practices and interventions to drive performance. The proposed change appears timely and capable of guiding the corporation to achieve its potential. Those involved need to understand that workers form a significant part of the proposed change. The leaders should communicate directly and prepare them for the intended new practices (Al-Dmour, Nweiran and Al-Dmour, 2017). The role of effective leadership remains essential towards promoting change and ensuring that desirable outcomes are eventually recorded (Schotthöfer, 2017). At Google, the practice of leading the targeted followers will be much easier due to the organizational culture and employee empowerment measures that have been in place over the years.
The leaders at Google need to apply their competencies if desirable results are to be recorded in a timely manner. They should appreciate the fact that most of the employees are still affected by the deaths of their loved ones or financial constraints arising from COVID-19 (Al-Habaibeh et al., 2021). They should also be aware of the current remote arrangements for completing tasks at the company (Junnaid, Miralam and Jeet, 2020). The move to change such plans will, therefore, attract significant resistance from the workers (Hughes, 2018). The consideration of the expectations of all other key stakeholders throughout the change period would be appropriate (Sanyal and Hisam, 2018). The ultimate aim is to implement a unique form of leadership that has the potential to deliver the intended results.
Leaders will begin by advocating for the needed change. They will sponsor the process by attracting attention of the workers and guiding them to understand some of the benefits Google stands to gain (Agnihotri and Bhattacharya, 2022). They will consider the importance of role-modeling since it promotes a sense of direction (Black and La Venture, 2017). Such professionals need to exhibit the most appropriate behaviors, views, and responses to the new work arrangements (Al Badi, 2018). Throughout the implementation period, the leaders need to ensure that their words and promises remain consistent with their actions.
The responsible leaders at Google need to assume managerial roles in order to make timely decisions and match them with the expectations of all followers. They will go further to consider the available resources and equipment to ensure that they can support the intended work arrangements (Northouse, 2018). Those in authority will have to make deliberations, engage others, and show the best initiatives to move forward (Kezar and Holcombe, 2017). During the decision-making process, it becomes necessary for leaders to get the inputs of all workers (Islami, Mustafa and Latkovikj, 2020). These actions will make it possible for the managers to remain decisive and ready to promote the right priorities (Mansaray, 2019). Consequently, the organization will be ready and equipped to pursue the proposed change.
Another important attribute of effective leadership in strategic change management is communication. Due to the nature of transformations and the potential challenges, leaders should ensure that their followers get timely updates (LeMahieu, Nordstrum and Potvin, 2017). Being the change engage, their voices and messages resonate with the actions of the workers. They should reduce emerging concerns and remain consistent (Aczel et al., 2021). Any form of misconception or wrong signals could have negative implications for the transformation and make it impossible for the company to achieve the intended outcomes.
The idea of engagement is essential since it allows leaders to motivate their followers and ensure that they remain involved. The created urgency, as observed in Kotter’s model, is only possible and successful when the leader remains committed and ready to address some of the possible obstacles. The managers will engage those who offer timely inputs and offer the relevant rewards (Kabeyi, 2019). These professionals need to acknowledge that the change process could be challenging and capable of meeting different forms of rejection (Muraliraj et al., 2018). The engagement of the leader will maximize the level of motivation and eventually take the team closer to the anticipated aims (Tanno and Banner, 2018). These inputs will ensure that more workers are interested in the new way of doing things, thereby making the change possible.
Currently, Google is need of a new change if it is to remain profitable and reduce the recorded level of employee turnover. The consideration of the outlined strategic change approach will make it possible for Google to experience a smooth transition due to the involvement of all stakeholders. The human side of change remains critical because it dictates the timeliness and success rate of the change (Klempin and Karp, 2018). It would, therefore, be appropriate for the change agents or leaders at this corporation to remain committed and apply their competencies more efficiently.
Reference List
Aczel, B. et al. (2021) ‘Researchers working from home: benefits and challenges’, PLoS ONE, 16(3).
Agnihotri, A. and Bhattacharya, S. (2022) Google’s workplace design for serendipity. New York: SAGE Publications.
Al Badi, K.S. (2018) ‘The impact of marketing mix on the competitive advantage of the SME sector in the Al Buraimi governorate in Oman’, SAGE Open, 8(3).
Alase, A.O. (2017) ‘The tasks of reviewing and finding the right organizational change theory’, International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 5(2), pp. 198-215.
Al-Dmour, H., Nweiran, M. and Al-Dmour, R. (2017) ‘The influence of organizational culture on e-commerce adoption’, 12(9), pp. 204-220.
Al-Habaibeh, A. et al. (2021) ‘Challenges and opportunities of remotely working from home during Covid-19 pandemic’, Global Transitions, 3(1), pp. 99-108.
Black, J. and La Venture, K. (2017) ‘The human factor to profitability: people-centered cultures as meaningful organizations’, Journal of Organizational Psychology, 17(2), pp. 24-34. Web.
Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (2017) Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership. New York: Wiley.
Brock, J., Peak, K. and Bunch, P. (2019) ‘Intuitively leading change: completing a kinesiology department-to-school transformation using Kotter’s 8-stage change model’, Journal of Physical Education and Sports Management, 6(2), pp. 14-24.
Cairns, T.D. (2017) ‘Power, politics, and leadership in the workplace’, Employment Relations, 43(4), pp. 5-11.
Carpenter, A.L. et al. (2018) ‘Working from home: an initial pilot examination of videoconferencing-based cognitive behavioral therapy for anxious youth delivered to the home setting’, Behavioral Therapy, 49(6), pp. 917-930.
Chesser, J.W. and Cullen, N.C. (2018) The world of culinary management: leadership and development of human resources. 6th edn. New York: Pearson.
Ciopages Staff Writer (2021) ‘Top ten change management models’, Ciopages, Web.
Cote, R. (2017) ‘A comparison of leadership theories in an organizational environment’, International Journal of Business Administration, 8(5), pp. 28-35.
Daft, R., Murphy, J. and Willmott, H. (2017) Organization theory and design: an International Perspective. 3rd edn. London: Cengage Learning.
Danny, S. and Crosthwaite, C. (2021) ‘Minimising risk—The application of Kotter’s change management model on customer relationship management systems: a case study’, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(1), pp. 496-515.
Davis, L. (2020) ‘who are the rivals to Google’s search engine throne?’, Adzooma Blog, Web.
Debarliev, S., Janeska-Iliev, A. and Ilieva, V. (2020) ‘The status quo bias of students and reframing as an educational intervention towards entrepreneurial thinking and change adoption’, Economics and Business Review, 22(3), pp.363-383.
Deborah, O.K. (2018) ‘Lewin’s theory of change: applicability of its principles in a contemporary organization’, Journal of Strategic Management, 2(5), pp. 1 – 12. Web.
Donthu, N. and Gustafsson, A. (2020) ‘Effects of COVID-19 on business and research’, Journal of Business Research, 117(1), pp. 284-289.
Doppelt, B. (2017) Leading change toward sustainability: a change-management guide for business, government, and civil society. New York: Routledge.
EPM (2021) ‘Kotter’s 8-step change model’, Expert Program Management, Web.
Felipe, C.M. et al. (2017) ‘Impact of organizational culture values on organizational agility’, Sustainability, 9(12), pp. 2354-2376.
Ford, J., Ford, L. and Polin, B. (2021) ‘Leadership in the implementation of change: functions, sources, and requisite variety’, Journal of Change Management, 21(1), pp. 87-119.
Ghazzawi, I. (2018) ‘Organizational decline: a conceptual framework and research agenda’, International Leadership Journal, 10(1), pp. 37–80. Web.
Green, D.D. et al. (2020) ‘The disruptiveness of technology: a case study of Google dominance’, Management and Economics Research Journal, 6(2), pp. 1-7.
Gupta, P. and Bisht, N.S. (2020) Google LLC: battling gender discrimination allegations. New York: SAGE Publications.
Hackman, T.A. (2017) ‘Leading change in action: reorganizing an academic library department using Kotter’s eight stage change model’, Library Leadership & Management, 31(2), pp. 1-27. Web.
Hughes, V. (2018) ‘What are the barriers to effective nurse leadership? A review’, Athens Journal of Health, 5(1), pp. 7-20.
Hussain, S.T. 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, 3(3), pp. 123-127.
Hussain, S.T. 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, 3(3), pp. 123-127.
Islami, X., Mustafa, N. and Latkovikj, M.T. (2020) ‘Linking Porter’s generic strategies to firm performance’, Future Business Journal, 6(3).
Jacks, T. (2021) ‘Research on remote work in the era of COVID-19’, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 24(2), pp. 93-97.
Jensen, J.D. (2017) ‘The learning organization: a strategic approach to today’s global business environment’, The Journal of International Management Studies, 12(1), pp. 55-66. Web.
Junnaid, M.H., Miralam, M.S. and Jeet, V. (2020) ‘Leadership and organizational change management in unpredictable situations in responding to COVID-19 pandemic’, International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 11(16), pp. 1-12.
Kabeyi, M.J.B. (2019) ‘Corporate governance in manufacturing and management with analysis of governance failures at Enron and Volkswagen Corporations’, American Journal of Operations and Information Systems, 4(4), pp. 109-123.
Kezar, A.J. and Holcombe, E.M. (2017) Shared leadership in higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Kim, J. and Choi, S.O. (2020) ‘The Intensity of organizational change and the perception of organizational innovativeness; with discussion on open innovation’, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(3), pp. 66-79.
Kinney, P. (2017) ‘Walking interviews’, Social Research Update, 67(1), pp. 1-4. Web.
Klempin, S. and Karp, M.M. (2018) ‘Leadership for transformative change: lessons from technology-mediated reform in broad-access colleges’, The Journal of Higher Education, 89(1), pp. 81–105.
Klinefelter, A. and Wrigley, S. (2021) ‘Google LLC v. CNIL: the location-based limits of the EU right to erasure and lessons for U.S. privacy law’, North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 22(4), pp. 681-734. Web.
Knabenreich, H. (2021) Google for jobs: how Google revolutionizes the job market and you benefit in recruiting. New York: Springer Shop.
Lee, I. and Tipoe, E. (2021) ‘Changes in the quantity and quality of time use during the COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: Who is the most affected?’, PLoS ONE, 16(11).
LeMahieu, P.G., Nordstrum, L.E. and Potvin, A.S. (2017) ‘Design-based Implementation Research’, Quality Assurance in Education, 25(1), pp. 26-42.
Maharaj, S. and Pooe, R. (2021) ‘Overcoming challenges associated with managing change towards Digital Banking – a case of a South African bank’, Journal of Contemporary Management, 18(1), pp. 1-23.
Mansaray, H.E. (2019) ‘The role of leadership style in organisational change management: a literature review’, Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), pp. 18-31.
Martin, B.H. (2017) ‘Unsticking the status quo: strategic framing effects on managerial mindset, status quo bias and systematic resistance to change’, Management Research Review, 40(2), pp. 122-141. Web.
Methode, K. et al. (2019) ‘Effect of organizational change on employee performance among selected commercial banks in Bujumbura, Burundi’, East African Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 2(4), pp. 224-234. Web.
Miles, J.M. and Scott, E.S. (2019) ‘A new leadership development model for nursing education’, Journal of Professional Nursing, 35(1), pp. 5-11.
Moeckel, R. (2017) ‘Working from home: modeling the impact of telework on transportation and land use’, Transportation Research Procedia, 26(1), pp. 207-214.
Muraliraj, J. et al. (2018) ‘Annotated methodological review of Lean Six Sigma’, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 9(1), pp. 2-49.
Nayak, S.N. (2017) ‘Google products for enhancing library services’, Asian Journal of Information Science and Technology, 7(2), pp. 47-52. Web.
Northouse, P.G. (2018) Leadership theory and practice. 8th edn. New York: SAGE Open.
Oakman, J. et al. (2020) ‘A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: how do we optimise health?’, BMC Public Health, 20(1825).
Osborne, S. and Hammoud, M.S. (2017) ‘Effective employee engagement in the workplace’, International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 6(1), pp. 50-67.
Rybnicek, R. et al. (2019) ‘Industry and leadership experiences of the heads of departments and their impact on the performance of public universities, Management Decision, 57(12), pp. 3321-3345.
Sanyal, S. and Hisam, M. (2018) ‘The impact of teamwork on work performance of employees’, IOSR Journal of Business Management, 20(3), pp. 15-22.
Schotthöfer, P. (2017) International advertising law: problems, class, and commentary. Amsterdam: Wolters Kluwer.
Shen, H., Gao, Y. and Yang, X. (2017) ‘Matching organizational climate and control mechanisms for fast strategic change in transitional economics: evidence from China’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(2), pp. 124-141.
Suddaby, R. and Foster, W.M. (2017) ‘History and organizational change’, The Journal of Management, 43(1), pp. 19-38.
Tanno, J.P. and Banner, D.K. (2018) ‘Servant leaders as change agents’, Journal of Social Change, 10(1), pp. 1-8.
Tran, S.K. (2017) ‘GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management’, International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2(1), pp. 10-23.
Vaitkūnaitė, I., Beniušis, M. and Jurčys, P. (2021) ‘The lawsuit of the decade—Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.: a victory for interoperability and the future of innovation’, Journal of Intelectual Property Law & Practice, 16(6), pp. 4630465.
Vyas, L. and Butakhieo, N. (2020) ‘The impact of working from home during COVID-19 on work and life domains: an exploratory study on Hong Kong’, Policy Design and Practice, 4(1), pp. 59-76.
Warrick, D.D. (2017) ‘What leaders need to know about organizational culture’, Business Horizons, 60(3), pp. 395-404.
Wu, Y., Chen, C. and Chan, Y. (2020) ‘The outbreak of COVID-19: An overview’, Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 83(3), pp. 217-220.
Wulandari, R.W. et al. (2020) ‘Role of leaders in building organizational readiness to change – Case study at public health centers in Indonesia’, Problems and Perspectives in Management, 18(3), pp. 1-10.
Yang, L. et al. (2022) ‘The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers’, Nature Human Behavior, 6(1), pp. 43-54. Web.
Yi, H.K., Park, S. and Kim, J. (2019) ‘The effects of business strategy and inventory on the relationship between sales manipulation and future profitability’, Sustainability, 11(8), pp. 2377-2394.
Yuliansyah, Y., Gurd, B. and Mohamed, F. (2017) ‘The significant of business strategy in improving organizational performance’, Humanomics, 33(10), pp. 56-74.
Yun, J.J., Jung, K. and Yigitcanlar, T. (2018) ‘Open innovation of James Watt and Steve Jobs: insights for sustainability of economic growth’, Sustainability, 10(5), pp. 1553-1568.
Zhou, M. and Kan, M.Y. (2021) ‘The varying impacts of COVID-19 and its related measures in the UK: A year in review’, PLoS ONE, 16(9).