literature review on managing attitudes

Reactions towards organizational change: a systematic literature review

• Published: 13 April 2022
• Volume 42 , pages 19137–19160, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Khai Wah Khaw 1 ,
• Alhamzah Alnoor   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2873-2054 1 , 2 ,
• Hadi AL-Abrrow 3 ,
• Victor Tiberius 4 ,
• Yuvaraj Ganesan 5 &
• Nadia A. Atshan 2  

73k Accesses

38 Citations

31 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Regardless of the prevalence and value of change initiatives in contemporary organizations, these often face resistance by employees. This resistance is the outcome of change recipients’ cognitive and behavioral reactions towards change. To better understand the causes and effects of reactions to change, a holistic view of prior research is needed. Accordingly, we provide a systematic literature review on this topic. We categorize extant research into four major and several subcategories: micro and macro reactions. We analyze the essential characteristics of the emerging field of change reactions along research issues and challenges, benefits of (even negative) reactions, managerial implications, and propose future research opportunities.

Similar content being viewed by others

Employee Reactions to Organizational Change: The Main Models and Measures

Disentangling the Complexity of Recipients’ Responses to Change

Shaul oreg: disentangling the complexity of recipients’ responses to change, explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

During the past two decades, many studies have been conducted that have been interested in organizational change and the mechanisms that promote that process smoothly (Benford & Snow, 2000 ; Bouckenooghe, 2010 ; Caldwell et al., 2009 ; Pettigrew et al., 2001 ). Despite that wide interest in the process of organizational change, these studies reported negative results, as most of those efforts ended with an unsuccessful implementation of the process of organizational change and ultimately failure (Beer & Nohria, 2000 ; Meaney and Pung, 2008; Hussain et al., 2018 ). This is because the focus was on many secondary variables and ignored the most important factor of individual and organizational reactions towards organizational change in those studies (Oreg et al., 2011 ; Penava and Sˇehic, 2014). Herold et al., 2008 ; Holten and Brenner, 2015; Oreg & Berson, 2011 ; Alnoor et al., 2021 ).

A reaction towards a change is a cognitive and behavioral response based on an adaptation and a comprehensive understanding of how to react towards a change (AL-Abrrow et al., 2019b ; Peng et al, 2020 ). This largely depends on how managers introduce a change and on the extent to which others respond. Usually, a negative reaction towards change happens when it is expected to result into more workload, uncertainty, and fatigue, especially when change is rapid and spans the whole organization or large parts of it (Beare et al., 2020 ; Li et al., 2017 ). Individuals’ reactions towards organizational change are expected to be dependent on the individual’s perception and assessment of the change effects on the individual. This suggests that a reaction towards a change is developed through the interactions between attitudes, beliefs, and feelings of an individual towards a change. A successful implementation of a change depends on how individuals interact with organizational change (Oreg et al, 2011 ; Shura et al., 2017 ). Participation in the change process is closely related with reactions towards a change. Practitioners are likely to be able to effectively diagnose and improve the willingness to change when they understand the need for change (Albrecht et al., 2020 ). Besides, people are more inclined to commit to a change if they perceive the change in alignment with their expectations and the resistance to change would be minimal (Helpap, 2016 ).

A positive reaction allows individuals to be more job focused and hence less resistance to change can be expected (Gardner et al., 1987 ). Similarly, a negative reaction towards change often generates a strong resistance to change. This happens if change is perceived as harming. Moreover, individuals’ resort to negative reactions when work relationships are threatened because of a change in a way that causes them to quit their job (Michela & Vena, 2012 ). However, some individuals are indecisive in their reactions towards a change, especially when future outcomes are unpredictable. This results into disruption and anxiety for both organizations and individuals, and thus reactions serve as the method aimed at dealing and engaging with change (Blom, 2018 ).

These considerations suggest that individuals react differently towards organizational change, depending on their respective perceptions. This invites a comprehensive study to understand the differences in reactions and to explain the main role that reactions play towards organizational change. Based on a systematic literature review, we provide a comprehensive framework that can help get an in-depth understanding of the reactions on organizational change. Earlier studies on precedents and consequences of change have been more concerned about reactions to organizational change (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). Despite the need of organizational change, many change initiatives fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000 ), mainly because of differences in individuals’ interactions in the change process (Oreg et al., 2011 ). Rafferty et al. ( 2013 ), developed a model to study individual level willingness to change. It was found that change based on interactions, homogeneous attitudes, and feelings are successful, and vice versa. Still, there is need to present a broader and more comprehensive theoretical framework based on earlier studies to better understand reactions towards change at different levels, i.e., micro and macro level. Although many researchers have contributed to conducting many studies to try to analyze the nature of cognitive and behavioral responses, for example, job satisfaction, individual performance, emotional intelligence, readiness for organizational creativity, and leadership abilities of all kinds (Malik and Masood, 2015; Malik and Masood, 2015). There are rare studies that dealt with reactions to organizational change at all levels, micro and macro (Khan et al., 2018 ). Thus, the number of studies that investigated reactions to change has increased, but the different types of study cases are still unknown to allocate the most critical determinants that contribute to positive and negative reactions to change. Hence, further investigation is needed. This systematic analysis seeks to provide useful insights into contexts of change reactions and to assist the authors in identifying current options and gaps in this type of study. Accordingly, our research meets the stated literary need. Our focus is to find how the subject of reactions towards change has been studied so far. The main goal is to provide a detailed methodological framework based on earlier studies, which explains the differences and trends in prior research. Additionally, we critically assess methodological issues and challenges found in previous research on reactions to organizational change, which can be overcome in future research. We plead for a changed perspective, which disentangles negative employee reactions to change from negative change outcomes. Rather, we argue that negative reactions can be interpreted as constructive criticism, which can improve the outcome process.

Methodology

To archive our research goal, we conducted a systematic literature review. We used ‘reactions to change’ as the main key word to search relevant articles in four databases. We considered only those articles written in English, which is considered to be the predominant scientific language. Only peer-reviewed articles and conference papers were included. The current study was accomplished according to the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses’ (PRISMA) criterions (Moher et al., 2015 ). For systematic reviews, PRISMA suggests that counting on a single database search for literature should be avoided; no single database is likely to contain all relevant references. Therefore, extensive searching is recommended (Berrang-Ford et al., 2015 ; Monroe et al., 2019 ).

In particular, we used four major databases to assemble the literature sample: IEE Xplore, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. These databases were selected based on their academic reliability and wider availability of relevant articles to discover the research gap and provide critical practical and theoretical implications (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ; Knobloch et al., 2011 ).

The selection process consisted of two phases of screening and filtration. First, duplicate articles found through matching of titles and abstracts were excluded. Second, articles were filtered after reading the entire article. This resulted in 79 articles (Fig.  1 ). Then, the main findings of the remaining articles were extracted and categorized.

Systematic review protocol

Results and discussion

A critical overview of the change reactions literature.

Previous studies of organizational change attempted to reach an increase in organizational effectiveness by focusing on organizational change and how change is implemented (Oreg & Berson, 2011 ; Oreg et al., 2011 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ; Tyler & De Cremer, 2005 ; Vakola et al., 2013 ; Van Dick et al., 2018 ; Walk & Handy, 2018 ; Whelan-Barry et al., 2003 ). The basic logic of such studies is based on the main assumption the positive or negative organizational consequences depend primarily on the extent to which individuals accept organizational change and their reactions to that change. Such a hypothesis is supported by many recent studies (Alfes et al., 2019 ; Borges & Quintas, 2020 ; Beare et al., 2020 ). Through the growing interest in researching the reactions of individuals towards organizational change. For example, the role of individuals’ reactions and how they interact with organizational change was examined within a time frame that spanned six decades from the end of the forties to 2022. A model was built on the basis of this research showing the relationship between the three main axes in the change process represented by the precedents of individuals’ reactions to change and responses to Their public actions and the consequences of that change (Oreg et al., 2011 ).

The vast majority of the total 79 studies relied on the longitudinal design in the research, and the other studies varied, including in adopting the type of design from transverse design to experimental studies, and 90% of those studies relied on data collection on self-reports of the study variables. Three main axes were discussed in terms of their relationship to the process of organizational change and the potential resistance that individuals come up with towards that change. Such three axes were represented by the cognitive axis, which is analyzed based on how individuals think about organizational change. The emotional axis by understanding and measuring the positive or negative feelings of individuals toward organizational change. The behavioral axis through which the extent to which the individual accepts or rejects organizational change appears (Bhatti et al., 2020 ; Constantino et al., 2021 ; Kashefi et al., 2012 ).

In recent years, factors such as the extent to which individuals accept organizational change and reactions to organizational change were the basic logic of previous studies that grew interested in researching the reactions of individuals towards organizational change (i.e., Roczniewska, & Higgins, 2019 ; Borges & Quintas, 2020 ; Du et al., 2020 ; Peng et al., 2020 ; Li et al., 2021 ). Prior studies have been focused on topics such as the psychodynamic explication of emotion, perception, behavior, and learning (Armenakis & Harris, 2009 ; Reiss et al., 2019 ; Tang & Gao, 2012 ; Al-Abrrow et al., 2019a ; Borges & Quintas, 2020 ), the behavior of leadership (Fugate, 2012 ; Matthew, 2009 ; Alnoor et al., 2020 ), the focus of attention (Gardner et al., 1987 ), internal communication (Men & Stacks, 2014 ; Li et al., 2021 ), individual attitudes (Akhtar et al., 2016 ; Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ; Liu & Zhang, 2019 ; McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ; Sanchez de Miguel et al., 2015 ), openness to change (Straatmann et al., 2016 ), and information systems (Bala & Venkatesh, 2017 ; Beare et al., 2020 ; Thirumaran et al., 2013 ). Figure  2 simplifies the determinants of reactions to change explored and investigated by the previous literature.

Determinants of reactions to change

Taxonomy of reactions to organizational change

The remaining 79 articles were divided into four categories (Fig.  3 ) regarding the level of reactions towards change i.e., micro and macro level. There were 39 articles relating to micro reactions to change and 40 articles on macro reactions. Hence, these major categories were linked to their corresponding subcategories as shown in Fig.  3 , depending on the frequency of relevance to ‘reactions to change’.

Taxonomy of reactions to change

Micro-level reactions

Antecedents of micro-level reactions.

In this category, the research articles discuss aspects the antecedents of individuals’ reactions to organizational change. The subcategory contains major topics where reactions to organizational change was adopted with regards to (1) Emotional, cognitive, and behavioral therapy, (2) Communication between employees, (3) Leadership style, (4) Individual attitude, (5) Openness to change, and (6) Information systems.

Cognitive behavioral therapy

At the individual level, aims to help human resource to relieve emotional stress and reduce the need for associated dysfunctional coping behaviors. Hence, this set of studies discusses reactions to organizational change with psychodynamic perspective and include 19 studies. Four studies (Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001 ; Armenakis & Harris, 2009 ; Reiss et al., 2019 ; Tang & Gao, 2012 ) discuss emotional and motivational responses to organizational change and strategies to overcome these emotional and motivational challenges. The other nine studies discuss perceptions about organizational change. Beside this, to present a systematic analysis of positive psychology, one of the studies emphasized the relationship between perceptions about organizational support and resistance to change (Ming-Chu & Meng-Hsiu, 2015 ; Al-Abrrow et al., 2019a ; Abbas et al., 2021b ). According to Albrecht et al. ( 2020 ) and Hatjidis and Parker ( 2017 ) change engagement influences employees’ perceptions of organizational change. Thus, employees’ cognitive and behavioral reactions influence their perceptions of organizational change (Borges & Quintas, 2020 ). Endrejat et al. ( 2020 ) and Helpap ( 2016 ) argue that organizational communication reinforces employees’ positive perceptions of organizational change and affects their psychological mechanisms. Contrary to this, a negative awareness about organizational change causes psychological withdrawal or distancing from organization (Michela & Vena, 2012 ). Belschak et al. ( 2020 ) found that the Machiavellianism leads to negative perceptions and negative reactions to change. Organizational efforts to induce change are much consistent when employees are more concerned with change target (Gardner et al., 1987 ; Hadi et al., 2018 ). Six studies discuss two aspects of personality and health regarding employees’ reactions towards change. We found two articles, which describe that organizational justice and culture significantly influence employees’ personality. Additionally, job satisfaction, once change occurs, is critical to personality development (Bailey & Raelin, 2015 ; Caldwell & Liu, 2011 ). The remaining four articles encompass employees’ health related concern in relation to organizational change in health sector (Abbas et al., 2020 ; Fournier et al., 2021 ). It was found that organizational change is perceived as causing fear of job insecurity and health and safety issues among doctors, which resulted into less job satisfaction and reduced level of motivation (Størseth, 2006 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ; Al-Abrrow et al., 2021 ).

Communication between employees

Communication between employees originated from the concept of organizational transparency. Communication provides positive and negative information to employees in a timely manner. Furthermore, communication between employees enhances the organizational capacity of employees and holds organizations accountable for practices and policies (Li et al., 2021 ). Communication between employees includes transparency, accountability, participation, and informatics (Men & Stacks, 2014 ). The change can be planned or unplanned. Planned change is the discovery of problems that need improvement in a proactive manner. Unplanned change is imposed by external forces. Therefore, organizations must react flexibly and quickly to survive (Seeger et al., 2005 ; Alnoor et al., 2020 ). However, the lack of communication between employees creates barriers and threats to organizations towards increasing negative reactions to change. Planned and unplanned changes increase people's confusion and uncertainty. Therefore, employees' understanding of changes through communication between them is critical to the success of change (Gillet et al., 2013 ).

Leadership style

Leadership contributes 71% of the success of change amongst employees. Therefore, leadership and leadership traits were critical factors for change reactions for employees (Fugate, 2012 ). The openness of the leader increases the positive reactions to change. However, the resistance of the leader stimulates negative reactions to change from the employees (Matthew, 2009 ). Relationships with employees by leaders are critical determinants of successful change leadership (Alnoor et al., 2020 ). Leadership style affects employees in different ways, such as credibility and trust are important drivers of change for leaders to certify employee interests are considered. The literature confirms the leader-member exchange theory increases the negative reactions of employees to the change linked with corporate merger (Fugate, 2012 ). On the other hand, creative leadership and transformational leadership inspire employees and increase positive employee reactions. Change leaders are creative and transformative leaders (Matthew, 2009 ). In addition, practical leadership reduces employee resistance to change and increases individual interest in implementing change (Herold et al., 2008 ; Khaw et al., 2021 ).

Individual attitude

This set of studies discusses reactions to organizational change in relation to different individual attitude and included eight studies. Two studies discuss gender attitude, especially the reactions of female employees towards organizational change (Sanchez de Miguel et al., 2015 ). Similarly, employees differ in their attitude of reactions to organizational change depending on their age. Additionally, cultural and attitude differences cause numerous employee reactions towards organizational change (McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ). Three studies discussed the influence of employees’ respective experiences on their attitude of reactions towards organizational change. These studies assert that employees’ previous experiences are important to influence employees’ reactions to organizational change (Alas, 2007 ). A frequent exposure to organizational change causes change fatigue and cynicism and accordingly produce employees’ reactions to organizational change (Stensaker & Meyer, 2012 ). Thus, there is a relationship between the frequency of change and the reactions to change represented by exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). On the other hand, the attitude of employees’ reactions towards organizational change in the public sector differs from the private sector in many ways, because the various processes of logistics and implementation. Therefore, the reactions of employees in the public sector are different compared to those in private sector. For this, the attitude of employees’ reactions in South African prisons to transformative changes in leadership were studied (Mdletye et al., 2013 ). In a policing context, 23 interviews were conducted, and it was concluded that the employees’ feedback began with three foci (me, colleagues, and organization) to assess change (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ). Moreover, a relationship between employees’ attitude in public service and their commitment to change was found (Liu & Zhang, 2019 ).

Openness to change

Four studies discussed employees’ openness to change in change and suggested that employability is related to positive emotions and higher level of employees’ openness to change in organizational changes (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008 ). Employees’ (dis) openness to change influences their emotional responses to organizational change (Saunders & Thornhill, 2011 ). It was found that the size and age of a company as well as employees’ expectations boost employees’ openness to change for the successful implementation of change (Lines et al., 2015 ). It is common that employees react whenever a new system is introduced. Yan and Jacobs ( 2008 ) studied employees’ trust and openness to change in relation to organizational change under the lean enterprise system. Two studies discuss diagnostic assessments, which are important during change implementation to deal with employees’ reactions to organizational change (Straatmann et al., 2016 ). Hence, creating interpersonal consensus promotes positive perceptions of change (Dickson & Simmons, 1970 ).

Information systems

This set of studies discusses reactions to organizational change in form of Information systems adoption and included six studies. For example, employees’ cognitive evaluation in reaction to Information systems implementation initiatives was discussed, which provided a deeper understanding of employees' feelings and perceptions of change (Kashefi et al., 2012 ). The authors claimed that a system can be designed to measure the feelings of individuals and customers towards the change implementation (Thirumaran et al., 2013 ). In another study, individuals' reactions to changes within supply chains were measured through the implementation of interorganizational business process standards (Bala & Venkatesh, 2017 ). Moreover, another study presented reactions of employees to digitally enabled work events and how digital technology affects employees ‘emotions (Beare et al., 2020 ). Lilly and Durr ( 2012 ), discussed the effect of implementing new technology on increasing the anxiety and stress among employees. Similarly, employees’ reactions towards technological change implemented in a bank were analyzed (Vakola, 2016 ).

Outcomes of micro-level reactions to organizational change

The change reaction leads to many outcomes and at different organizational levels. The range of literature examining employees' reaction to change is wide. Furthermore, the results of the literature review identified four vital categories: Voice behavior, exit behavior, neglect behavior, and loyalty behavior.

Individual voice behavior

Voice behavior is a type of organizational citizenship behavior differs from altruism, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship because such behavior is costly (Chou & Barron, 2016 ). Voice behavior is discussing problems with the administrator or staff, suggesting solutions, solve problems, and whistleblowing (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992 ). There is a high perceived risk of employee voice behavior. Nevertheless, organizations invest in voice behavior to make efficient management decisions and solve problems (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). The change literature has shown one of the consequences of change reactions is the voice behavior (Abdullah et al., 2021 ; Barner, 2008 ; Svendsen & Joensson, 2016 ). According to Ng and Feldman ( 2012 ) the higher employee voice behavior increases creativity, performance, exploration, and exploitation of ideas. Therefore, the voice behavior reduces anxiety and fatigue of individual toward organizational change. Previous literature has demonstrated voice behavior due to change increases employee turnover (Bala & Venkatesh, 2017 ). Individual voice behavior leads to undesirable results. In this context, change affects the social exchange and social relations between employees. Hence, organizational change reduces the quality of social exchange. Employees feel unappreciated and involved, which increases resistance to change (Zellars & Tepper, 2003 ). From a psychological perspective, the reaction to change is crucial for employees to express their opinions (Bhatti et al., 2020 ). Therefore, the voice behavior should be considered as a positive behavior that solves problems rather than identifying them (Whiting et al., 2012 ).

Individual exit behavior

Exit behavior is transferring, thinking about quitting, searching for a different job, and sabotage (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992 ). Most of the literature on reactions to change confirmed the main reason for employees to exit work is change (Akhtar et al., 2016 ; Bryant, 2006 ; Šedžiuvienė & Vveinhardt, 2018 ). However, there are two types of exit behavior, vertical and horizontal. Vertical mobility is moving upwards in the same organization. Horizontal mobility is the employee’s turnover of the organization (Davis & Luthans, 1988 ). Many firms view employee turnover negatively. The literature confirmed the employee turnover can be positive because it renews blood and increases the recruitment of skilled human resources (Elfenbein & Knott, 2015 ). Negative change reactions cause an increase in employee turnover. In this context, many human resources are transferred to other organizations. Such human resources bringing with them competitive advantages that increase innovation and creativity (Walk & Handy, 2018 ). Therefore, the literature confirms organizational inertia reduces organizational development. Hence, turnover allows work to correct organizational errors and provides further improvement for tasks (Piderit, 2000 ). Horizontal mobility due to change reduces organizational loyalty of employees caused by increased desire to search for new work (Carnall, 1986 ). In conclusion the reactions to organizational change contribute to the withdrawal of employees from the organization. However, employee turnover may promote to superior performance.

Individual neglect behavior

The literature indicates that one of the outcomes of micro-level reactions to organizational change is neglectful behavior (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). Employees who experience negative reactions to change contribute less organizational effort (Vantilborgh, 2015 ). Hence, individual neglect behavior is chronic lateness, reduced interest, increased error rate, and using firm time for personal business (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992 ). The change increases uncertainty due to several employees loses their jobs and positions. In this context, many employees underestimate the seriousness of their work (Svendsen & Joensson, 2016 ). Previous studies on organizational change have argued employees' reactions to change are a decisive factor in reducing efforts, decreasing work quality, and increasing absenteeism (Chou & Barron, 2016 ; Withey & Cooper, 1989 ). Therefore, negative reactions to change are negatively related to the time spent by the employee and the efforts made at work (Alnoor et al., 2022 ; McLarty et al., 2021 ).

Individual loyalty behavior

Loyalty behavior is waiting and hoping for improvement, giving support to the organization, being a good soldier, and trusting the organization to do the right thing (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992 ). Organizational change that maintains working relationships and psychological contracts with employees is likely to increase the strength of individuals’ loyalty due to the rule of reciprocity (Davis & Luthans, 1988 ). Individual realization that organizational change fulfills organizational commitment to individuals, strengthens the relationship amongst the organization and the individual (McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ). Negative employee reactions to change reduce individual loyalty (Constantino et al., 2021 ). Individual loyalty is the employee's readiness to maintain affiliation in the organization by giving attention to the goals and values of the organization (Aljayi et al., 2016 ). Individual loyalty receives outstanding consideration in the change literature because individual reactions to change can be a fundamental determinant of individual loyalty to the organization (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). Hence, job satisfaction and a positive reaction to change increase the emotional and mental connection of individuals to the organization (Milton et al., 2020 ).

Macro-level reactions

Antecedents of macro-level reactions.

This category included 40 research articles, which discuss macro-level related aspects of reactions towards organizational change. In this category, the research articles consider aspects the antecedents of macro-level reactions. Major topics are (1) Organizational emotional, cognitive, and behavioral, (2) Organizational communication, (3) Leadership style, (4) Organizational attitude, (5) Organizational openness to change, and (6) Organizational information systems.

Organizational emotional, cognitive, and behavioral

Organizational reactions towards organizational change are informed by emotional, cognitive, and behavioral therapy of strategic changes such as mergers and strategic alliance. Strategic mergers can influence stakeholders’ decisions, which may result into negative reactions towards such merger (Basinger & Peterson, 2008 ; Bowes, 1981 ). This negative reaction is expressed through heightened anxiety levels and reduced emotional attachment (Rafferty and Jimmieson, 2010 ). Such a strategic change can lead to organizational exit (Schilling et al., 2012 ). Moreover, the effect of changes introduced by cross-border processes on organizational reactions was studied and it was found that there is an effect of dynamic cultures on organizational reactions towards change (Chung et al., 2014 ; Khaw et al., 2022 ).

Organizational communication

The second set of studies discusses reactions to organizational change regarding organizational communication. The lack of organizational communication caused organizational imbalances that negatively affected reactions towards organizational change in a way that tends to follow negative reactions such as an exit (Kruglanski et al., 2007 ). Weakness in organizational communication caused tension among employees and resulted into negative reactions towards change (Li et al., 2021 ). In this context, numerous environmental changes and crises have led to weak organizational communication during the change. For example, the recent Covid-19 pandemic that caused many barriers in organizational communication (Milton et al., 2020 ). Hence, when there is an abrupt change due to unexpected circumstances the organizational negative reactions would be increased towards change due to the lack of organizational communication (Fadhil et al., 2021 ).

Transformational leaders’ reactions are affected by organizational change in a way that enhances their readiness for change and motivates them for increased participation and performance to support change (Faupel, & Süß, 2019 ). It was also found transformational leaders and their reactions are significantly related to change. Transformational leaders are committed and willing to bring change and react in a way to defuse resistance to change (Peng, et al., 2020 ). Transformational leadership facilitates a successful implementation of a change (Islam et al., 2021 ; Thomson et al., 2016 ). There is an influence of transformational leaders in supporting the change processes which commensurate with their positive reactions towards change (Bayraktar & Jiménez, 2020 ). Transformational leaders play an important role in shaping positive reactions towards organizational change and supporting the changes process (Busari et al., 2019 ). On the other hand, the success of a change process depends on leaders’ competency in inducing change, and transactional leadership can provide such competency. Transactional leadership encourages critical thinking and participation to ensure success of a change process (Khan, et al., 2018 ). As transactional leadership is supportive to change, it is helpful to reduce resistance to change (Oreg & Berson, 2011 ). Therefore, managers use their authority to support organizational change (Tyler & De Cremer, 2005 ). Organizational confidence in managers is a critical factor that generates positive managerial reactions towards organizational change (Du et al., 2020 ; Harley et al., 2006 ). However, change may generate negative managerial reactions of non-acceptance of change (Huy et al., 2014 ). The magnitude of managers response and their reactions depends on the degree and intensity of a change (Bryant, 2006 ).

Organizational attitude

There is an agreement between leadership and organizational change such that organizational attitude is employed in a way that reflects positive reactions towards organizational change (Fugate, 2012 ). It was found that, acceptance or rejection of change depends on the existing organizational attitude and measures taken to implement change (Bin Mat Zin, 2009 ). Hence, organizational wellness is positively related to the ability to deal with change. Moreover, leaders provide insight about how change affects the organization’s procedures, and this may help to overcome resistance to change (Alfes et al., 2019 ). Although change is inevitable, individuals struggle with change when their vision is unclear, which causes turmoil and increased anxiety. Additionally, individuals find it difficult to engage in organizational change when the organizational policies develop feelings of fear among individuals, and this causes resistance to change (Blom, 2018 ). Firms’ responses to organizational change requires confidence and adaptation necessary to engage with change, and this depends on the self-evaluation and the extent of accept the changes. Therefore, leaders highlight the change and call for a commitment to it (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011 ; Rizzuto et al., 2014 ). Reactions towards change are dependent on firms' belief about change. Organizational actions and beliefs induce constructive change (Vakola et al., 2013 ).

Organizational openness to change

The literature found reactions pose a challenge for organization towards change when there is a lack of organizational openness to change. Therefore, employees have negative reactions towards change, while leaders have positive reactions that support the change process and help to get change accepted (Walk & Handy, 2018 ). Individual employees understand that change can create a complex situation, which can give rise to issues for employees, and they refute change. In contrast, leaders perceive change as beneficial to the organization and they support it. Leaders see change as one major requirement for the development of organization. Therefore, they encourage openness to change. Whereas individual employees are not opened to change because they perceive change will create organizational instability. Leaders encourage organizational activities, which facilitate change. In contrast, individuals express lower level of openness and acceptance to change (Rechter & Sverdlik, 2016 ). Leaders see the attainment of organizational and personal goal through change. Contrary to this, the lack of opened to accept change create incompatibility between the organizational goals and the change initiative (Roczniewska & Higgins, 2019 ). Explicit reactions to change can be interpreted in many ways, some of which involve the benefits of change, while others are related to the negative consequences of change (Oreg et al., 2011 ). Thus, employees do not show a stronger commitment to accept change, but leaders tend to understand a change (Mangundjaya et al., 2015 ).

Organizational information systems

Organizational information systems are a vital and significant resource for companies. Consequently, the huge development in information and communication systems led to taking proactive steps towards adopting innovative and modern technology (Hadid & Al-Sayed, 2021 ). The adoption of modern information systems has contributed to increasing organizational anxiety due to fear of change (Paterson & Cary, 2002 ). However, interest in new technology development by companies increases the potential for long-term downtime. Therefore, context conditions must be created to encourage organizational changes (Walk & Handy, 2018 ). Digital technologies have penetrated companies tremendously and rapidly. Rapid technological changes have transformed organizational work designs by increasing flexibility and empowerment (Beare et al., 2020 ). However, digital technologies have negatively affected the organization by not separating personal and work life (Chen & Karahanna, 2014 ). Digital technologies have created enormous social challenges through the constant bombardment of social media messages and emails (Vakola, 2016 ). Therefore, the working hours of employees have increased because they are sometimes obligated to respond. Furthermore, organizational information systems enhanced emotional reactions by increasing feelings of anger, unhappiness, and frustration (Andrade & Ariely, 2009 ).

In conclusion, the level-specific study offers an examination of the antecedents, associations, and implications of reactions to organizational change at the individual and organizational level. However, multilevel theories, methods, and analyses have gained popularity in recent years (Walk & Handy, 2018 ), and the reactions to organizational change have been studied in this manner. Several studies examine how reactions to organizational change operates across levels, while others use cross-level designs to examine how reactions to organizational change is concurrently influenced by variables at different levels. Exemplary studies for both kinds are discussed below and are arranged according to the main predictor variable (or variables) from the preceding categories.

Outcomes of macro-level reactions to organizational change

The change reaction indicates to various consequences at macro-level. Hence, the frequency of macro-level reactions to change, relating to the reaction typology suggested by Akhtar et al. ( 2016 ). Apart from voice, exit, loyalty, and neglect, we added social identity as the most frequently mentioned reaction type at the macro level.

Organizational voice

A positive organizational change results into a voice behavior where employees accept organizational change (Barner, 2008 ). However, change is without organizational support led in negative voice behavior such as employees’ resistance (Peachey & Bruening, 2012 ). Directing organizations has the enormous leadership task of listening to the voices of managers and employees about strategies for change (O'Neill & Lenn, 1995 ). The literature indicates responses to change, such as organizational voice behavior, leave managers stuck between fear of the future and respect for the past (Stylianou et al., 2019 ). Organizational voice behavior affects the professional and personal lives of managers and employees. Consequently, the practice of organizational changes causes the loss of many jobs, which is reflected on the feelings of managers and employees and causes ridicule, anger, anxiety, resentment, and organizational surrender (O'Neill & Lenn, 1995 ). Organizational voices due to change exacerbate organizational problems because of constant blaming of the chief executive officer. Organizational concerns are heightened by the difficulty of expressing opinions. In this context, organizational voices turn into sources of organizational mopping throughout the organization except perhaps the chief executive office (Barner, 2008 ). As a result, the negative reactions cause feelings of organizational anger and anxiety by increasing the difficulty of articulate the organizational voice.

Organizational exit

The literature shows negative reactions to change increase workplace bullying (Barner, 2008 ; Peachey & Bruening, 2012 ). Thus, reactions to organizational procedures encourage behavioral responses to organizational exit (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). Negative responses to organizational change are likely to be stronger in the exit behavior comparative with voice behavior (Balabanova et al., 2019 ). Because exit behavior is an assertive reaction that is associated with change and is not bound by organizational conditions (Farrell & Rusbult, 1992 ). Hence, exit behavior is risky because such behavior increases organizational disruption and stimulates harmful work behavior (Ng et al., 2014 ). Unexpected change leads to the organization's exit from the entrepreneurial work. In this context, organizations leave the entrepreneurial profession. Exiting creative and entrepreneurial businesses affects the company and the economy in general (Shahid and Kundi, 2021b ). Negative reactions to change reduces motivation and self-efficacy, which increases organizational fatigue, impedes the implementation of organizational tasks, and causes exit (Surdu et al., 2018 ).

Organizational loyalty

Panchal and Catwright ( 2001 ) argued that organizational change is a complex process that makes it difficult for employees to accept such a process. Because routine work and many tasks affect change. Employees are significantly affected by frequent organizational change and are reflected in the practice of exit and neglect behaviors and low level of loyalty (Akhtar et al., 2016 ). Adopting successful organizational change increases positive reactions. However, most of the change literature confirms numerous change programs erupt and increase the negative reactions that occur through the practice of neglectful behaviors and lack of organizational loyalty (Bartunek et al., 2006 ). Organizational change increases stress, decreases commitment, and decreases loyalty. Frequent and ineffective changes produce negative responses and cause a decrease in job security. Consequently, the organization will suffer from low loyalty (Guzzo et al., 1994 ). Organizational loyalty decreases due to frequent changes lead to employees rethinking that continuing in this organization is not beneficial (Reiss et al., 2019 ). Such changes create uncertainty and cause organizational mopping (Constantino et al., 2021 ). Organizational change is a critical cause of low loyalty because inefficient changes increase negative organizational perceptions regarding social atmosphere, perceived promise, job content, and rewards (Van der Smissen et al., 2013 ). Therefore, increased negative reactions to change due to frequent and ineffective changes raises organizational perceptions of low loyalty and decreases organizational loyalty.

Organizational neglect

Hirschman ( 1970 ) proposed the employees' enactment of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model and was expanded by (Farrell, 1983 ; Rusbult et al., 1988 ). The employees' enactment of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model refer the decline of the organization creates many negative reactions that increase the deterioration in performance and reduce efficiency and learning, involving exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Reactions contributes to identifying failures and correcting tracks. Therefore, adverse behaviors assist the organization to deal with unfavorable situations, because the behavior of neglect and tardiness for work represents a communication strategy for the members of the organization (Meyers, 2020 ). Organizational neglect represents dishonorable behavior and organizational leniency. Organizational neglect behaviors include reduced attention and delay, reduced effort, increased absenteeism, increased error rates, and concern for personal issues at work (Lee & Varon, 2020 ). Unsuccessful organizational change is a major source of social loafing. Social loafing is the tendency of people to neglect work (Murphy et al., 2003 ). Thus, the reactions of employees at the organizational level contribute to reducing performance and increasing organizational failure (Abbas et al., 2021a ; Akhtar et al., 2016 ).

Social identity

A fantastic reaction is generated by the members of the organization to protect and prove the social identity of the organization. Therefore, managing stability is as important as managing change in the context of social identity (Dutton et al., 1994 ). Organizational change affects some basic features of employees’ social identity, which leads to an imbalance in reactions towards change and causes uncertainty among individuals (Jacobs et al., 2008 ). The intense reactions of the members of the organization highlight the importance of organizational identity. Social identity is useful to understand and analyze reactions to deal positively with organizational change. For example, a weak social identity may lead to a negative reaction towards organizational change, such as disloyalty. Flexible social identity helps to give a quick response to organizational change and facilitates an anticipation of reactions towards change (Aggerholm, 2014 ). The success of organizational change and positive reaction is linked to the recognition of organizational identity based on the intention to remain in the organization and job satisfaction. Developing social identity in change programs reduces negative reactions to change (Clark et al., 2010 ). Łupina-Wegener et al. ( 2015 ) argued shared identity positively influences employees' perceptions of accepting change. Because the shared identity stimulates the transfer of organizational practices between units and departments after the post-change. Therefore, the organization must give employees a sense of continuity for the organization's bright future to practice transferring positive behaviors after implementing change programs (Jacobs et al., 2008 ).

Research issues and challenges

Previous research on reactions to organizational change is subject to several methodological issues and challenges. In the following, we asses methodological issues relating to research design, sector, country, research sample, techniques, and variables (Table 1 ). Compared to a multitude of other management subjects, research on reactions to organizational change shows both its strengths and limitations. Furthermore, it seems that similar problems are relevant at different levels of analysis. To a certain extent, a reaction to organizational change literature advances systematically, while other subject areas have not progressed as much.

Reactions to organizational change as a multidimensional construct

Evidence has collected that a five-factor multi-indicator CFA model fits Akhtar et al. ( 2016 ) and Van Dick et al. ( 2018 ) reactions to organizational change measure at the individual levels of analysis (e.g., Exit, neglect, loyalty, voice, and social identity). Using first-order CFA, Akhtar et al. ( 2016 ) found an “modest fit” with one sample. Elsewhere, both Bryant ( 2006 ) and Šedžiuvienė and Vveinhardt ( 2018 ) found satisfactory fit for a two-factor (i.e., Exit and voice) latent model. Divergent validity of the five-dimensional reactions to organizational change scale was shown by Akhtar et al. ( 2016 ) who discovered that it was different from a single order factor. It should be noted that in addition to obtaining evidence supporting the discriminant validity of the reactions to organizational change dimensions from negative affectivity, job satisfaction, and psychological climate Van Dick et al. ( 2018 ) examined the relationships between social identity and voice behavior. Researcher Aggerholm ( 2014 ) was able to show the discriminant and convergent validity of reactions to organizational change, namely, the capacity to increase organizational misbehavior, working relationship with a supervisor, decrease trust in one's supervisor, and work performance, with unrespect to work engagement and job satisfaction.

There has been relatively little team-level CFA work done as compared to work done at the individual level. It should be clear that this fact comes from the truth that it is very difficult to sample enough teams to do studies for this kind of analyses. Although CFA models have been applied to the Walk and Handy ( 2018 ) individual and organizational outcomes but without respect multilevel model. This produces a discontinuity between the amount of investigation and the amount of theory used (Maynard et al., 2012 ). While we believe this is a promising approach, we encourage researchers to use multilevel CFA methods when conducting analyses that seek to elucidate the construct validity of aggregate variables, with the goal of the study being the total number of teams in the focus population. Concurrently, there is no published research on whether two- and four-dimensional forms of reactions to organizational change provide equivalent criterion-related validity. Here, future studies could compare the two measures, determine whether there are important changes between the various versions, and investigate if the various conceptualizations maintain validity and stability through time and cultures by respecting the assessment of measurement model. In addition, we think that these problems offer valuable topics for future study. In this context, there was vital issue which is related to assessment of structural model. Moreover, there is no study combination of structural equation modeling and artificial neural network. Hence, they did not consider the two mains of benefits the combination of structural equation modeling and artificial neural network is that the use of multi-analytical two-phases SEM–ANN method tool up two vital benefits. First, it allows for further validation of the SEM analysis findings. Second, this approach captures not just linear but also dynamic nonlinear interactions between antecedents and dependent variables and a more accurate measure of each predictor's relative power as well. Furthermore, the potential future work can use SEM-ANN model to determine the reactions to organizational change by adopting multilevel model.

Mono-method issues

At the individual and team levels, most research done on reactions to organizational change consists of questionnaires asking workers about antecedents, correlates, and consequences of such reactions. Any common measurement or percept-percept biases will increase observed associations (Maynard et al., 2012 ). These biases are intensified if both variables are measured at the same time. Three percent of the individual-level research utilized a different source, whereas 97 percent used self-reported criteria measures. Individual-level reactions to organizational change are more likely to be biased by monothiol bias, resulting in inflated correlations, while team-level relationships are less likely to be distorted by monothiol bias. In keeping with this result, Mangundjaya et al. ( 2015 ) showed that task performance correlated more strongly with the reactions of individuals when responses were obtained through self-report measures than when responses were collected by other means. Reactions to organizational change have been operationalized in different ways throughout the literature at each level of study. Reactions to organizational change, as measured and studied at both the individual and team levels, are each shown in the literature as being in two-dimensional, four-dimensional, and aggregated forms. However, yet, there has been no study to account for the disparate measuring methods that may influence the correlations shown in studies like this. Therefore, we believe future studies should examine how measuring approaches influence such correlations.

Mediator and moderator inferences

As mentioned before and shown in Fig.  2 , reactions to organizational change are usually regarded as a mediator between the characteristics of people and environments and outcomes, regardless of the substantive level of study. The validity of mediational effects is contingent on a variety of variables, most notably the accuracy of the assumed causal chain connecting antecedents to reactions to organizational change and to outcomes (Chung et al., 2014 ; Li et al., 2021 ). As shown in the contribution section, 49% of individual-level studies and 16% of team-level studies used cross-sectional designs. The studies conducted so far have shown nothing in the way of causation or association between organizational change and reactions at the level of analysis. Additional work exploring how direct impacts are mediated and/or studying variables that may mitigate such direct effects appears to hold across different levels of analysis in which reactions to organizational change have been examined. Researchers to date have mostly examined things that serve as antecedents to reactions and results that are influenced by reactions to organizational change. According to the authors of the paper Walk and Handy ( 2018 ), job crafting acts as a mediator in explaining the connection between the perceived effect of change and people's reactions to organizational change. Hence, there are many additional possible mediators that have not yet been studied. In fact, the few research that investigate how specific connections within the reactions to organizational change influence other possible moderators are found at different levels of analysis. And thus, we believe that it is the appropriate moment for those interested in the influences that mediate and moderate reactions to organizational change to investigate many facets that are intricately intertwined in these responses.

Research design

Research design refers to a general strategy chosen to integrate various components of a study in a coherent and logical manner. It is always challenging to choose an appropriate research design because sometimes a chosen design does not align with the data. For example, a longitudinal design often used in qualitative studies can be time consuming due to nature of data (Bayraktar & Jiménez, 2020 ; Faupel & Süß, 2019 ; Liu & Zhang, 2019 ). Similarly, the descriptive design may not generate the required results due to inability to control the tendencies of the individuals involved in data collection (Barner, 2008 ; Bin Mat Zin, 2009 ). Some of the studies that have been covered focus on cross-sectional or one-way design, but they are not generalizable because they may be biased (Vakola et al., 2013 ). In addition, future studies should use longitudinal designs that allow tracking of changes at organizational levels and aim to collect data from multiple sources (Barner, 2008 ; Chung et al., 2014 ; Fournier et al., 2021 ; Kashefi et al., 2012 ; Oreg et al., 2011 ), while other studies called to follow the method of interviews that extract information and provide insight into the nature of change processes in organizations (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ; Saunders & Thornhill, 2011 ). An improved understanding of the long-term consequences of organizational transformation might enhance the reactions to such studies. Gerwin ( 1999 ) proposed managers could empower teams throughout the life cycle, for example, while the teams are forming, maturing, and growing. According to Gerwin ( 1999 ), organizational change may take place as a cycle, and it is the role of reactions to these changes to push the cycle in one direction or another.

The sector refers to research site where the study is to be conducted and can be public or private organization as per the study requirements. Choosing a public sector as study site may be problematic for change related studies because public sector employees resist change and can generate biasness in responses (Borges & Quintas, 2020 ; Kennedy-Clark, 2010 ; Santos Policarpo et al., 2018 ; Milton et al., 2020 ). Studies conducted in industrial organizations do not allow generalization of the results because these organizations require changes in terms of organizational structures, strategy, and operating procedures, but they are not on a large scale. Thus, results could not be generalized, and such studies should be conducted in other organizations (Mangundjaya et al., 2015 ). Studies in service sector (hotels, hospitals) give great importance to adopting actual change (Hatjidis & Parker, 2017 ). As a result, it must be considered when generalizing to all other service organizations, as there may be fundamental differences between organizations. Future research should focus on other service sectors such as banking (Vakola, 2016 ). Regarding security issues, the effect of the organizational identity on the change processes of national security institutions has been verified, and the results of these studies cannot be generalized because the changes that are made may lead to imbalances with the organizational culture in other organizations (Belschak et al., 2020 ; Jacobs et al., 2008 ). In addition, researchers can focus on industrial companies such as technological industries, digital technologies, wired and wireless communication companies (Tang & Gao, 2012 ).

Countries differ from one another in many ways. Hence, the result of a study conducted in one country may not be generalized to other countries. Similarly, economic, social, and political restrictions among countries may reduce the possibility of generalization of research findings across countries (Fournier et al., 2021 ; Lines et al., 2015 ; Tang & Gao, 2012 ). Some studies focused on one country without considering the role of the social and political factors of other countries, Therefore, the results of these studies cannot be generalized to other countries (Kashefi et al., 2012 ; Mangundjaya et al., 2015 ). As a result, future studies are encouraged to use data from other countries to conduct comparative analyzes, which may allow generalization (Fournier et al., 2021 ; Straatmann et al., 2016 ). A study of Blom ( 2018 ) in manufacturing industries of South Africa, which included a sample of companies interconnected with the parent company, and thus studied the opinions of employees from other countries. As for studies conducted in developing countries, their results are not generalizable, as the behavioral responses in these countries differ from those in European countries (Busari et al., 2019 ; Li et al., 2021 ). Consequently, the country differs in many ways in terms of productive and social capabilities, and this may be a limitation in several countries (Huy et al., 2014 ; McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ).

Research sample

A sample represents a component of population chosen to provide the required data. There is problem when sample size is too small to generalize the result to larger population (Šedžiuvienė & Vveinhardt, 2018 ; Yan & Jacobs, 2008 ). Similarly, a larger sample may provide the data which may not be relevant to the study objectives (Rizzuto et al., 2014 ; Stensaker & Meyer, 2012 ). Most of the studies discussed focused on collecting data from individuals working in different organizations. However, there is a strong tendency to conduct more studies that enable data collection in other contexts to highlight the roles of leaders and managers to participate in providing support for change processes (Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001 ; Barner, 2008 ; Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ). Moreover, the choice of the sample determines the fate of the study, whether it is possible to generalize or not. The larger sample size, the greater the possibility of generalization (Šedžiuvienė and Vveinhardt, 2018 ; Yan and Jacobs, 2008 ). Sample selection was problematic during the pandemic period because there were difficulties in collecting data and accessing responses (Li et al., 2021 ). In addition, some authors have dealt with specific groups in state-owned organizations, but such studies were hard to generalize as they need more verification and other opinions to prevent bias (Lines et al., 2015 ). More studies shed light on urging researchers to survey the opinions of users and beneficiaries at all organizational levels to reach the results. The researchers were also urged to take into consideration the age composition of the polarized sample before embarking on organizational change initiatives (McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ).

Among the other challenges that some studies faces are the choice of statistical methods to analyze the data because the chosen methods may be not suitable for data and the results are less convincing (Bin Mat Zin, 2009 ; Chung et al., 2014 ). Many researchers have used exploratory studies, which are of great importance in drawing conclusions. However, previous studies focused on use such design in one context and limits the possibility of generalization (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ; Vakola et al., 2013 ). Researchers also used interviews for a specific number of employees, which caused biasness in reactions (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ; Saunders & Thornhill, 2011 ). Therefore, focusing on other methods such as observation to see the impact of reactions to change will provide motivational cases and ideas worth sharing (Kruglanski et al., 2007 ). Some studies used structural equation modeling, which revealed the suitability of this technique for experimental research (Borges & Quintas, 2020 ; Faupel & Süß, 2019 ; Gardner et al., 1987 ). Likewise, some studies used a questionnaire and performed analysis, such as multiple regression and content analysis, which is considered a qualitative method in analyzing data and interpreting its meaning and provides an opportunity for researchers to choose different issues (Alas, 2007 ; Busari et al., 2019 ; Chung et al., 2014 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ). Although these analyses have proven their worth in extracting results, it requires researchers to use deep statistical analysis to reach generalizable results (Hatjidis & Parker, 2017 ; Huy et al., 2014 ). The researchers urged for future studies to use surveys and conduct comparative analysis between groups that would reduce time bias in the data (McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ).

The selection of incorrect variables may generate the biased result, or the variables may not be able to sufficiently serve the purpose of study and researchers need to add more variable to get rich data (Albrecht et al., 2020 ; Tyler & De Cremer, 2005 ). Table 1 . Explain the issues and challenges of reactions organizational change in this regard. One of the limitations that some studies faced is they did not examine the personal characteristics of individuals, such as the influence of traits and the role of personality in directing reactions, as individuals with a high degree of negative influence of traits tend to follow the opposite reactions, neglecting this aspect may cause bias (Huy et al., 2014 ). It was also noted the studies discussed focused on the pace of change and trust in management and still there is necessity to discuss other variables that are highly related to change such as organizational culture, employee communication, commitment, fairness, job characteristics, resistance to change, psychological context, individual incentives, and anxiety of change (Busari et al., 2019 ; Lines et al., 2015 ; Oreg et al., 2011 ). Given the behavioral aspect is very important in human studies, addressing the use of behavioral support for organizational performance contributes to improving the reaction to change processes (Fournier et al., 2021 ). Moreover, considering technological development and intense competition between current organizations, the use of management information system will reduce behavioral and organizational problems (Dickson & Simmons, 1970 ). Researchers called for attention to the problem of studying the planned organizational change on a large scale in a place where employees do not have a voice, and the opportunities for participation are limited and the resistance to change is extreme (Fugate, 2012 ; Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ). As a result, the changing organizations face huge challenges and spend massive amounts of resources on training and developing their employees (Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001 ).

Benefits of (Even Negative) reactions to organizational change

The purpose of this systematic review is to expand theory and the understanding on reactions to organizational change by incorporating ideas from several disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, complexity sciences, and institutional perspectives). Many studies on organizational change reactions have concentrated on the causes or outcomes of these reactions, with a specific focus on resistance and, therefore, rather negative outcomes. Organizational change is often a necessity caused by external threats, such as intense competition (Oreg et al., 2011 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ). To implement change, the cooperation of employees is required (Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001 ; Hatjidis & Parker, 2017 ; Peng et al., 2020 ). However, a mixture of psychological, social, emotional, and cultural dimensions in employees’ reactions can negatively interfere with the process of organizational change itself (Armenakis & Harris, 2009 ).

In this section, we attempt to change this perspective and, based on the findings in Sect. 3.1, formulate several propositions, which may enable organizations to overcome negative reactions and transform them into positive change outcomes. Basically, we argue that (1) negative reactions can be seen as a source of constructive criticism, (2) which can be used to improve the change process. Employees can be viewed as a critical authority in an organization, which might evoke new perspectives on the change process. The provided constructive criticism points to issues that require further attention by the organization. The antecedents, process, and outcomes of the change process are more thoroughly analyzed regarding possible weaknesses and strengths, which can improve the whole change process (Fournier et al., 2021 ; Straatmann et al., 2016 ). In particular, this encourages those in charge to address shortcomings and help facilitate change processes (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ). It can also help increase communication between members of the organization during various stages of organizational change (Li et al., 2021 ). Listening to employees’ objections might reduce the complexity of change (Chung et al., 2014 ; Fugate, 2012 ; Reiss et al., 2019 ) and can motivate and empower them to contribute to the success of change processes (Casey et al., 1997 ; Kruglanski et al., 2007 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ).

Theoretical recommendation

The results of this review revealed several critical variables and factors that had been investigated in previous research on change responses. There are many challenges and benefits that academics should take into consideration. Hence, understanding the negative and positive effects of change reactions can be an essential key concept to the successful implementation of organizational change. The results of an extensive literature review show allowing human resources to participate and rush into change programs increases the likelihood of successful implementation of planned and unplanned change. The leadership style has a strong and significant role in adopting change. Theoretically, the literature has proven the transformational and transactional leadership style are vital leadership styles that raise positive reactions to organizational change (e.g., Bayraktar & Jiménez, 2020 ; Busari et al., 2019 ; Faupel, & Süß, 2019 ; Khan, et al., 2018 ; Oreg & Berson, 2011 ; Peng, et al., 2020 ; Thomson et al., 2016 ). The leadership aspect is of fantastic importance in the success of implementing change because the leader has ability to inspire employees towards increasing levels of motivation and deliver the message of change with the lowest level of negative reactions. Because leadership styles achieve mutual gain between individuals by giving individuals a sense of power to adjust or accept the changes that occur in the organization. This review expanded the communication's vision of change by identifying reactions in four integrated behaviors (i.e., Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect) that explain why individuals reject, resist, accept and embrace change.

Understanding reactions to change plays a critical role in enhancing individuals' cognitive, emotional experiences, and perceptions of changes. The results of this study shed light on the implementation of change during crises. The results prove epidemics and sudden consequences lead to lack of resources and loss of market share. There is huge benefit in adopting and responding to change programs amid crises, especially in the aftermath of unexpected crises, such as the COVID-19. Although crises add a significant burden to organizations in implementing change, it is necessary to face crises with a fantastic deal of courage, confidence, and communication to reduce exit reactions and disloyalty amongst employees. Supporting human resources and creating a work context with less organizational mopping leads to positive results and increases the success of organizational change adoption (Barner, 2008 ; Qin et al., 2019 ). Adopting organizational change is an emotional process based on individuals' feelings and perceptions of change. Organizational change causes high levels of anxiety and tension. Because the individual adversely interferes with aspects of organizational change in a manner that creates the feeling of anxiety increased and loss of identity. However, reactions to organizational change are varied and may be positive by increasing job satisfaction and granting of responsibility. In this context, the reactions toward change may be negative also by increasing the likelihood of unsuitability of change with the organizational work. Furthermore, academics and practitioners should be concerned with the sensory and emotional aspects of how individuals react to organizational change. Because the organizational changes that include providing importance to the emotions and feelings of staff as part of the change process can encourage employees to change the attitude towards change and cooperate with current events (Beare et al., 2020 ).

Organizational communication is important for understanding people's emotions and perceptions of change. Communication before and post organizational change provides people with suitable and timely information, creates a sense of delegation of responsibility for change, and mitigates negative responses to organizational change (e.g., Basinger & Peterson, 2008 ). Academics can use the results of this review to understand change reactions from an organizational and individual perspective and to highlight challenges and barriers to implementing change. Analyzing and examining organizational elements such as organizational communication and organizational attitudes provides solutions while implementing change. Additionally, sharing responsibilities and integrating roles between participants in the change increases the results achieved from adopting organizational change. This review confirms there is a dearth of investigation into the influence of psychological context factors such as individual incentives, change anxiety, and organizational mopping on post change results at the individual and organizational level. Studying reactions to organizational change at different organizational levels contributes to identifying differences and similarities to reactions at multiple organizational levels. In this context, using the results of this review by academics and practitioners contributes to reducing negative reactions and increases the chances of successful implementation of change programs.

Many studies highlight the importance of change efforts in contemporary organizations to address external threats. However, employees’, i.e., change recipients’, cognitive and behavioral responses to change often result in resistance. A comprehensive perspective of past research is required to have a clear understanding of the causes and consequences of responses to change. For this reason, we have conducted a systematic literature review on this subject. Much of what has been discovered before may be categorized into these four levels: micro and macro level responses. An in-depth analysis of the literature helped identify the antecedents, effects, benefits, challenges, and recommendations associated with reactions to organizational change.

Our findings have managerial implications. Based on the literature review, we derive recommendations for change agents to facilitate the issues experienced by researchers whilst studying reactions to organizational change. Insights from our literature review highlighted both positive and negative aspects of reactions towards change. Accordingly, we divided these studies into two groups discussing positive and negative aspects. The positive aspects highlight the importance of reactions in supporting change and broadening the view of the motives for change (Armenakis & Harris, 2009 ; Gardner et al., 1987 ; Mangundjaya et al., 2015 ). This increases employees’ participation and positively affects their perceptions of change (Faupel & Süß, 2019 ; Straatmann et al., 2016 ; Paterson & Cary, 2002 ; Bin Mat Zin, 2009 ). In addition, there is a significant correlation between reactions, emotional commitment, self-respect, and optimism (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008 ; Liu & Zhang, 2019 ; Vakola, 2016 ), and this depends on administrative support to reduce the negative feelings towards change implementation. The stronger communication between individuals, the more it has a positive effect towards improving reactions to change (Tang & Gao, 2012 ). The leadership plays a big role in directing reactions by providing opportunities to participate in decision-making, build confidence, and give individuals compensation opportunities (Khan et al., 2018 ). Likewise, individuals’perception of change depends on their reactions and behaviors (Hatjidis & Parker, 2017 ; Rechter & Sverdlik, 2016 ; Saunders & Thornhill, 2011 ). As the human being consists of a group of elements (emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical), when one of these elements is disrupted, it affects the other elements, which requires equal attention to these elements in order have a coherence and non-conflicting reactions (Blom, 2018 ).

Negative feelings towards change can occur due to increased fear of losing jobs and lower level of employees’ participation in change process (Barner, 2008 ; Rizzuto et al., 2014 ). When thinking about change, resistance is often the first thing that comes to mind (Walk & Handy, 2018 ). This is because individuals think of change as a shock that inversely affect them to think of negative consequences of change and hence, they resist change or develop an uncertainty about change processes (Størseth, 2006 ). There is also a perception that a poorly planned or poorly implemented change initiatives, in a way that does not consider the organizational or social conditions of individuals, increase stress levels (Blom, 2018 ). Likewise, changes frequently conflict with the organizational identity, which creates an unpleasant impression on individuals, and this leads to distort the intended purpose of the change and exposes the organizational identity to danger (Mdletye et al., 2013 ). It is imperative for practitioners and researchers to adopt broader, more accurate, and positive perspectives on how reactions affect organizational change (Belschak et al., 2020 ; McElroy & Morrow, 2010 ). In addition, some contradictory reactions lead to the deterioration of an organization (Fugate, 2012 ; Ming-Chu & Meng-Hsiu, 2015 ). This is because individuals have resistance to change and ridicule change, which generates internal conflict that negatively affects organization work processes (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018 ; Mdletye et al., 2013 ; Tavakoli, 2010 ). This happens because employees see change as a threat to their survival in organization (Huy et al., 2014 ; Paterson & Cary, 2002 ).

Our findings suggest steps aimed at addressing reactions should be initiated early on in a change process, to prevent negative attitudes from escalating into a desire to leave the organization. Organizations should also be aware that employees’ beliefs about ongoing change play an important role in shaping their work engagement and turnover intentions. Carefully monitoring and managing collective beliefs about a change during the full implementation phase—for instance, through employee participation and careful and timely communication. Therefore, help to avoid a loss in change momentum. Facilitating the change process and reducing the social and organizational costs of change.

This study also shows the theoretical contributions of previous studies by contributing to the development of the context of reactions towards organizational change at the individual, collective, and leadership levels, and using many of the above-mentioned scales at each level, which helps in accurately determining the impact at each level towards organizational change. This study, through its multi-level approach, attempted to cover as much as possible the reasons that may promote positive or negative reactions towards organizational change smoothly, which have not been extensively examined in previous studies. The results of the study found that the reactions towards organizational change within the cognitive and behavioral response were affected differently at each of the levels. For example, at the individual level by influencing the emotional side of working individuals, which affects their perceptions and thus their cognitive response to change and their behavior in terms of dealing with it (Hatjidis and Parker, 2020; Borges & Quintas, 2020 ), as both negative perception and the stimulation of negative emotions have A clear effect on the resistance reactions to organizational change in general (Belschak et al., 2020 ). The micro level, based on the criteria for strategic change, the pandemic, social identity, and vocal behavior, showed the negative effects of resistance reactions to organizational change resulting in most cases from negative perceptions and negative emotions towards change (Li et al., 2021 ; Milton et al., 2020 ; Van et al., 2018). The macro level by reviewing the types of leadership and the way each of them affects the reactions towards organizational change, as transformational leadership and transactions, as well as the response of managers, showed a prominent positive role in reducing the standing towards organizational change, promoting it and participating in it (Faupel & Süß, 2019 ; Peng et al., 2020 ; Du et al., 2020 ). The macro levels depended on a set of important factors represented in education, human resources, explicit feedback, and self-evaluations. Organizational attitude is behind the disruption of positive and negative reactions based on individuals' perception of information in a positive or negative way, or rather in an optimistic or pessimistic manner (Roczniewska & Higgins, 2019 ). While the impact of human resources appears in the reactions towards organizational change, positively or negatively, depending on the system that has been adopted and the methods used to implement the change (Bin Mat Zin, 2009 ; Blom, 2018 ). The effect of explicit reactions appears depending on a rule from which individuals start in their behavior, which is the belief about change and a factor directing that behavior towards accepting change through the leader’s behavior as a role model to deal with change and clarifying the impact of change in the minds of individuals (Vakola et al., 2013 ). Finally, it seems that individuals' self-assessment about change is often based on the principle of maintaining the status quo and unwillingness to change, which shows resistance behavior (Rizzuto et al., 2014 ). Therefore, the study recommends in some variables for future research, which is the study of personality traits because there are some underlying factors of emotions and openness to change and other factors that may significantly affect reactions towards organizational change. It also recommends taking other types of leadership, for example, participatory leadership and knowing its impact in reactions.

The review also revealed research gaps to be addressed in future research. Regardless of the prevalence and value of reform initiatives in contemporary organizations, change initiatives often struggle to achieve desired goals. It has been argued employees are at the heart of the change initiative and major determinants of the degree to which any change will succeed. Despite many challenges, organizational change is relevant for firm survival and performance, which needs to be further investigated. Specific patterns can be drawn from different organization types where reactions towards organizational change have been studied. Further research gaps relate to the level of application, conceptual model, and sector. The literature made some recommendations to increase strategic performance as well as achieve marketing differentiation in addition to high customer satisfaction. This helps to reduce risks, respond to uncertainties and to achieve high flexibility under changing environmental conditions. These recommendations can address the challenges to organizational change and open more opportunities for future research. Because of the fierce competition, companies will continue to develop more sophisticated competitive advantages, and thus researchers must identify emerging trends and strategies of organizational change. Based on the research that is shown throughout this review, there is a wealth of work in different settings and at various levels of analysis that considers reactions to organizational change during the prior two decades.

The current study is not without some limitations like any other study. As the current study was limited to focusing on the leadership level on direct leadership instead of focusing on the leadership team, as the former appears as a representative of the interests of the organization and transfers its goals and defines tasks to working individuals, while the latter is concerned with clarifying the objectives and reasons behind the organizational change in a way that enhances acceptance of change and participation in it. by working individuals. In addition, when studying the variables that were adopted in the study and their impact on reactions to organizational change, that study did not control some of the variables that could have a very big role in explaining the nature of the results that were reached, which are individual differences and personal traits. Finally, the study neglects the cultural context, which often has a significant role in influencing the nature of the interrelationships between variables at the individual, collective, and leadership levels, and between the nature of reactions towards organizational change, which appears more clearly when the study sample is diverse in different countries able to reflect the nature of cultures change.

Data availability

The data of the paper, which support the analysis and results of this paper, are available with the corresponding author and the data can be obtained from the authors upon request.

Abbas, A., Ekowati, D., & Suhariadi, F. (2021a). Individual psychological distance: A leadership task to assess and cope with invisible change. Journal of Management Development, 40 (3), 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-09-2020-0304

Article   Google Scholar  

Abbas, A., Saud, M., Suhariadi, F., Usman, I., & Ekowati, D. (2020). Positive leadership psychology: Authentic and servant leadership in higher education in Pakistan. Current Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01051-1

Abbas, S., Hadi, A. A., Abdullah, H. O., Alnoor, A., Khattak, Z. Z., & Khaw, K. W. (2021b). Encountering Covid-19 and perceived stress and the role of a health climate among medical workers. Current Psychology, 1–14 ,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01381-8

Abdullah, H., Ismail, I., Alnoor, A., & Yaqoub, E. (2021). Effect of perceived support on employee’s voice behaviour through the work engagement: A moderator role of locus of control. International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking, 11 (1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPMB.2021.112253

Aggerholm, H. K. (2014). Communicating organizational change reactions: Downsizing survivors’ discursive constructions of flexible identities. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 77 (4), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490614547757

Akhtar, M. N., Bal, M., & Long, L. (2016). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect reactions to frequency of change, and impact of change: A sensemaking perspective through the lens of psychological contract. Employee Relations, 38 (4), 536–562. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-03-2015-0048

Al-Abrrow, H., Alnoor, A., & Abbas, S. (2019a). The effect of organizational resilience and CEO’s narcissism on project success: Organizational risk as mediating variable. Organization Management Journal, 16 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15416518.2018.1549468

AL-Abrrow, H., Alnoor, A., Ismail, E., Eneizan, B., & Makhamreh, H. Z. (2019b). Psychological contract and organizational misbehavior: Exploring the moderating and mediating effects of organizational health and psychological contract breach in Iraqi oil tanks company. Cogent Business & Management, 6 (1), 1683123. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1683123

Al-Abrrow, H., Fayez, A.S., Abdullah, H., Khaw, K.W., Alnoor, A. and Rexhepi, G. (2021), "Effect of open-mindedness and humble behavior on innovation: mediator role of learning", International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-08-2020-0888

Alas, R. (2007). Reactions to organizational change from the institutional perspective: The case of Estonia. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 5 (3), 19–30.

Google Scholar  

Albrecht, S. L., Connaughton, S., Foster, K., Furlong, S., & Yeow, C. J. L. (2020). Change Engagement, Change Resources, and Change Demands: A Model for Positive Employee Orientations to Organizational Change. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 2854. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.531944

Alfes, K., Shantz, A. D., Bailey, C., Conway, E., Monks, K., & Fu, N. (2019). Perceived human resource system strength and employee reactions toward change: Revisiting human resource’s remit as change agent. Human Resource Management, 58 (3), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21948

Aljayi, Y., Fjer, A., Guennioui, M., & Tamek, A. (2016). Multinational companies’ human resource management practices and their organizational culture impact on employees’ loyalty: Case of Japanese multinational company in Morocco. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230 , 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.026

Alnoor, A. M., Al-Abrrow, H., Abdullah, H., & Abbas, S. (2020). The impact of self-efficacy on employees’ ability to accept new technology in an Iraqi university. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 39 (2), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.21984

Alnoor, A., Abdullah, H. O., Al-Abrrow, H., Wah Khaw, K., Al-Awidi, I. A., Abbas, S., & Omrane, A. (2021). A Fuzzy Delphi analytic job demands-resources model to rank factors influencing open innovation. Transnational Corporations Review, 1-15. 10.1080/19186444.2021.1956854.

Alnoor, A., AL-Abrrow, H., Al Halbusi, H., Khaw, K. W., Chew, X., Al-Maatoq, M., & Alharbi, R. K. (2022). Uncovering the Antecedents of Trust in Social Commerce: An Application of the Non-Linear Artificial Neural Network Approach. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print (No. ahead-of-print).

Andrade, E. B., & Ariely, D. (2009). The enduring impact of transient emotions on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.02.003

Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Gabriel, Y. (2001). Emotion, learning and organizational change: Towards an integration of psychoanalytic and other perspectives. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14 (5), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005874

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11 (4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9 (2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010902879079

Bailey, J. R., & Raelin, J. D. (2015). Organizations don’t resist change, people do: Modeling individual reactions to organizational change through loss and terror management. Organization Management Journal, 12 (3), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/15416518.2015.1039637

Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2017). Employees’ reactions to IT-enabled process innovations in the age of data analytics in healthcare. Business Process Management Journal., 23 (3), 671–702. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-11-2015-0166

Balabanova, E., Ehrnrooth, M., Koveshnikov, A., & Efendiev, A. (2019). Employee exit and constructive voice as behavioral responses to psychological contract breach in Finland and Russia: A within-and between-culture examination. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–32 ,. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1699144

Barner, R. (2008). The dark tower: Using visual metaphors to facilitate emotional expression during organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21 (1), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810810847075

Bartunek, J. M., Rousseau, D. M., Rudolph, J. W., & DePalma, J. A. (2006). On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42 (2), 182–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886305285455

Basinger, N. W., & Peterson, J. R. (2008). Where you stand depends on where you sit: Participation and reactions to change. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19 (2), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.217

Bayraktar, S., & Jiménez, A. (2020). Self-efficacy as a resource: A moderated mediation model of transformational leadership, extent of change and reactions to change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33 (2), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-12-2018-0368

Beare, E. C., O’Raghallaigh, P., McAvoy, J., & Hayes, J. (2020). Employees’ emotional reactions to digitally enabled work events. Journal of Decision Systems, 30 (2–3), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1782085

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, vol 29, pp: 226–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1782085

Belschak, F. D., Jacobs, G., Giessner, S. R., Horton, K. E., & Bayerl, P. S. (2020). When the going gets tough: Employee reactions to large-scale organizational change and the role of employee Machiavellianism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41 (9), 830–850. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2478

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26 , 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611

Berrang-Ford, L., Pearce, T., & Ford, J. D. (2015). Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research. Regional Environmental Change, 15 (5), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0708-7

Bhatti, Z. A., Arain, G. A., Akram, M. S., Fang, Y. H., & Yasin, H. M. (2020). Constructive voice behavior for social change on social networking sites: A reflection of moral identity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157 , 120101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120101

Bin Mat Zin, R. (2009). The reactions of employees towards the implementation of human resource information systems (HRIS) as a planned change program: A case study. In 2009 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology (pp. 433–437). IEEE. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSIT.2009.5234677

Blom, T. (2018). Organisational wellness: human reaction to change. South African Journal of Business Management, 49 (1), 10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v49i1.2

Borges, R., & Quintas, C. A. (2020). Understanding the individual’s reactions to the organizational change: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33 (5), 667–681. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2019-0279

Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the organizational change literature. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46 (4), 500–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310367944

Bowes, J. (1981). Some cognitive and social correlates of children’s fluency in riddle-telling. Current Psychology, 1 (1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02684421

Bryant, M. (2006). Talking about change: Understanding employee responses through qualitative research. Management Decision, 44 (2), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310367944

Busari, A. H., Khan, S. N., Abdullah, S. M., & Mughal, Y. H. (2019). Transformational leadership style, followership, and factors of employees’ reactions towards organizational change. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 14 (2), 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-03-2018-0083

Caldwell, S. D., & Liu, Y. (2011). Further investigating the influence of personality in employee response to organisational change: The moderating role of change-related factors. Human Resource Management Journal, 21 (1), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00127.x

Caldwell, S. D., Yi, L., Fedor, D. B., & Herold, D. M. (2009). Why are perceptions of change in the “eye of the beholder”? The role of age, sex, and tenure in procedural justice judgements. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45 , 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886309336068

Carnall, C. A. (1986). Toward a theory for the evaluation of organizational change. Human Relations, 39 (8), 745–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678603900803

Casey, M. K., Miller, V. D., & Johnson, J. R. (1997). Survivors’ information seeking following a reduction in workforce. Communication Research, 24 (6), 755–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650297024006007

Chen, A. J., & Karahanna, E. (2014). Boundaryless technology: Understanding the effects of technology-mediated interruptions across the boundaries between work and personal life. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 6 (2), 16–36.

Chou, S. Y., & Barron, K. (2016). Employee voice behavior revisited: Its forms and antecedents. Management Research Review, 39 (12), 1720–1737. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0199

Chung, G. H., Du, J., & Choi, J. N. (2014). How do employees adapt to organizational change driven by cross-border M&As? A case in China. Journal of World Business, 49 (1), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.01.001

Clark, S. M., Gioia, D. A., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Transitional identity as a facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55 (3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.3.397

Constantino, S. M., Schlüter, M., Weber, E. U., & Wijermans, N. (2021). Cognition and behavior in context: A framework and theories to explain natural resource use decisions in social-ecological systems. Sustainability Science, 16 (5), 1651–1671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00989-w

Davis, T. R. V., & Luthans, F. (1988). Organisational Exit: Understanding and Managing Voluntary Departures. Personnel Review, 17 (4), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055593

Dickson, G. W., & Simmons, J. K. (1970). The behavioral side of MIS Some aspects of the “people problem.” Business Horizons, 13 (4), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(70)90159-X

Du, J., Li, N. N., & Luo, Y. J. (2020). Authoritarian leadership in organizational change and employees’ active reactions: Have-to and willing-to perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 3076. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03076

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identifi cation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 , 239–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235

Elfenbein, D. W., & Knott, A. M. (2015). Time to exit: Rational, behavioral, and organizational delays. Strategic Management Journal, 36 (7), 957–975. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2262

Endrejat, P. C., Klonek, F. E., Müller-Frommeyer, L. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Turning change resistance into readiness: How change agents’ communication shapes recipient reactions. European Management Journal . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.11.004

Fadhil, S. S., Ismail, R., & Alnoor, A. (2021). The influence of soft skills on employability: a case study on technology industry sector in Malaysia. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management , 16: 255. https://doi.org/10.28945/4807

Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional study. Academy of Management Journal, 26 , 569–607. https://doi.org/10.5465/255909

Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect typology: The influence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5 (3), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01385048

Faupel, S., & Süß, S. (2019). The effect of transformational leadership on employees during organizational change–an empirical analysis. Journal of Change Management, 19 (3), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1447006

Fournier, P. L., Chênevert, D., & Jobin, M. H. (2021). The antecedents of physicians’ behavioral support for lean in healthcare: The mediating role of commitment to organizational change. International Journal of Production Economics, 232 , 107961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107961

Fugate, M. (2012), "The Impact of Leadership, Management, and HRM on Employee Reactions to Organizational Change". In: Martocchio, J.J., Joshi, A. and Liao, H. (Ed.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 31) . Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 177–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-7301(2012)0000031007

Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. J. (2008). A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81 (3), 503–527. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X241579

Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1987). Employee focus of attention and reactions to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23 (3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638702300305

Gerwin, D. (1999). Team empowerment in new product development. Business Horizons, 42 (4), 29–36.

Gillet, N., Gagné, M., Sauvagère, S., & Fouquereau, E. (2013). The role of supervisor autonomy support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled motivation in predicting employees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22 (4), 450–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.665228

Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate managers and the psychological contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (4), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.617

Hadi, A. A., Alnoor, A., & Abdullah, H. O. (2018). Socio-technical approach, decision-making environment, and sustainable performance: Role of ERP systems. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management , 13: 397–415. https://doi.org/10.28945/4149

Hadid, W., & Al-Sayed, M. (2021). Management accountants and strategic management accounting: The role of organizational culture and information systems. Management Accounting Research, 50 , 100725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2020.100725

Harley, B., Wright, C., Hall, R., & Dery, K. (2006). Management reactions to technological change: The example of enterprise resource planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42 (1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886305284857

Hatjidis, D., & Parker, A. (2017). The relationship between universal network perceptions and dyadic network perceptions and their effect on employees’ behavioral reactions to organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30 (7), 1030–1043. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2016-0106

Helpap, S. (2016). The impact of power distance orientation on recipients’ reactions to participatory versus programmatic change communication. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52 (1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886315617530

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (2), 346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.07.010

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Response to decline in firms, organizations, and states . Harvard University Press.

Hussain, S. T., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M. J., Hussain, S. H., & Ali, M. (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), 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002

Huy, Q. N., Corley, K. G., & Kraatz, M. S. (2014). From support to mutiny: Shifting legitimacy judgments and emotional reactions impacting the implementation of radical change. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (6), 1650–1680. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0074

Islam, M. N., Furuoka, F., & Idris, A. (2021). Mapping the relationship between transformational leadership, trust in leadership and employee championing behavior during organizational change. Asia Pacific Management Review, 26 (2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2020.09.002

Jacobs, G., & Keegan, A. (2018). Ethical considerations and change recipients’ reactions: ‘It’s not all about me.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 152 (1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3311-7

Jacobs, G., Christe-Zeyse, J., Keegan, A., & Polos, L. (2008). Reactions to organizational identity threats in times of change: Illustrations from the German police. Corporate Reputation Review, 11 (3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2008.18

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2011). Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organizational context. Human Resource Management Review, 21 (4), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.003

Kashefi, A., Abbott, P., & Bell, D. (2012). The influences of employees’ emotions and cognition on IT adoption: Some perspectives from Iran. International Journal of Social and Organizational Dynamics in IT (IJSODIT), 2 (3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijsodit.2012070101

Kennedy-Clark, S. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on using scenario based MUVEs in science education. Curriculum, technology, and transformation for an unknown future . Proceedings ascilite, Sydney, 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.015

Khan, S. N., Busari, A. H., Abdullah, S. M., & Mughal, Y. H. (2018). Followership moderation between the relationship of transactional leadership style and employees’ reactions towards organizational change. Polish Journal of Management Studies , 17. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2018.17.1.11

Khaw, K. W., Thurasamy, R., Al-Abrrow, H., Alnoor, A., Tiberius, V., Abdullah, H. O., & Abbas, S. (2021). Influence of generational status on immigrants’ entrepreneurial intentions to start new ventures: a framework based on structural equation modeling and multicriteria decision-making. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies . Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-04-2021-0141

Khaw, W., Alnoor, A., AL-Abrrow, H., Chew, X., Sadaa, A., Abbas, S., and Khattak, Z. (2022). Modelling and evaluating trust in mobile commerce: a hybrid three stage Fuzzy Delphi, structural equation modeling, and neural network approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction , Article in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.2004700

Knobloch, K., Yoon, U., & Vogt, P. M. (2011). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 39 (2), 91–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2010.11.001

Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Higgins, E. T., & Capozza, D. (2007). “On the Move” or “Staying Put”: Locomotion, need for closure, and reactions to organizational change 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37 (6), 1305–1340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00214.x

Lee, J., & Varon, A. L. (2020). Employee exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect in response to dissatisfying organizational situations: It depends on supervisory relationship quality. International Journal of Business Communication, 57 (1), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416675839

Li, J. Y., Sun, R., Tao, W., & Lee, Y. (2021). Employee coping with organizational change in the face of a pandemic: The role of transparent internal communication. Public Relations Review, 47 (1), 101984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101984

Li, M., Wang, Z., Gao, J., & You, X. (2017). Proactive personality and job satisfaction: The mediating effects of self-efficacy and work engagement in teachers. Current Psychology, 36 (1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9383-1

Lilly, J. D., & Durr, D. W. (2012). Technology changes at work and employee reactions: The role of leader behavior. Human Systems Management, 31 (3–4), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-2012-0769

Lines, B. C., Sullivan, K. T., Smithwick, J. B., & Mischung, J. (2015). Overcoming resistance to change in engineering and construction: Change management factors for owner organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 33 (5), 1170–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.008

Liu, B., & Zhang, Z. (2019). Motivational bases of commitment to organizational change in the Chinese public sector. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7539

Łupina-Wegener, A., Schneider, S. C., & Van Dick, R. (2015). The role of outgroups in constructing a shared identity: A longitudinal study of a subsidiary merger in Mexico. Management International Review, 55 (5), 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0247-6

Mangundjaya, W. L., Utoyo, D. B., & Wulandari, P. (2015). The role of leadership and employee’s condition on reaction to organizational change. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172 , 471–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.385

Matthew, C. T. (2009). Leader Creativity as a Predictor of Leading Change in Organizations 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39 (1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00427.x

Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38 (4), 1231–1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312438773

McElroy, J. C., & Morrow, P. C. (2010). Employee reactions to office redesign: A naturally occurring quasi-field experiment in a multi-generational setting. Human Relations, 63 (5), 609–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709342932

McLarty, B. D., Muldoon, J., Quade, M., & King, R. A. (2021). Your boss is the problem and solution: How supervisor-induced hindrance stressors and LMX influence employee job neglect and subsequent performance. Journal of Business Research, 130 , 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.032

Mdletye, M. A., Coetzee, J., & Ukpere, W. I. (2013). Emotional reactions to the experiences of transformational change: Evidence from the Department of Correctional Services of South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4 (14), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p501

Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on strategic internal communication and employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26 (4), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908720

Meyers, M. C. (2020). The neglected role of talent proactivity: Integrating proactive behavior into talent-management theorizing. Human Resource Management Review, 30 (2), 100703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100703

Michela, J. L., & Vena, J. (2012). A dependence-regulation account of psychological distancing in response to major organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 12 (1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.652376

Milton, J., Chaboyer, W., Åberg, N. D., Andersson, A. E., & Oxelmark, L. (2020). Safety attitudes and working climate after organizational change in a major emergency department in Sweden. International Emergency Nursing, 53 , 100830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2020.100830

Ming-Chu, Y., & Meng-Hsiu, L. (2015). Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between perceive organizational support and resistance to change. Asia Pacific Management Review, 20 (3), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2014.10.003

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M.,…, & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

Monroe, M. C., Plate, R. R., Oxarart, A., Bowers, A., & Chaves, W. A. (2019). Identifying effective climate change education strategies: A systematic review of the research. Environmental Education Research, 25 (6), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1360842

Murphy, S., Wayne, S., Liden, R., & Erdogan, B. (2003). Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human Relations, 56 , 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056001450

Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Butts, M. M. (2014). Psychological contract breaches and employee voice behavior: The moderating effects of changes in social relationships. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23 (4), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.766394

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33 (2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.754

O’Neill, H. M., & Lenn, D. J. (1995). Voices of survivors: Words that downsizing CEOs should hear. Academy of Management Perspectives, 9 (4), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1995.9512032188

Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and Employees ‘reactions to Change: The Role of Leaders ‘personal Attributes and Transformational Leadership Style. Personnel Psychology, 64 (3), 627–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01221.x

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A sixty-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47 (4), 461–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550

Panchal, S., & Cartwright, S. (2001). Group differences in post-merger stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16 (6), 424–433.

Paterson, J. M., & Cary, J. (2002). Organizational justice, change anxiety, and acceptance of downsizing: Preliminary tests of an AET-based model. Motivation and Emotion, 26 (1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015146225215

Peachey, J. W., & Bruening, J. (2012). Investigating ambivalence towards organisational change in a Football Championship Subdivision intercollegiate athletic department. Sport Management Review, 15 (2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2011.05.001

Peng, J., Li, M., Wang, Z., & Lin, Y. (2020). Transformational leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational change: Evidence from a meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 0021886320920366 ,. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320920366

Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4), 697–713. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069411

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), 783–794. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707722

Qin, K., Xie, N., Tang, Y., Wong, L., & Zhang, J. (2019). Perceived parental attitude toward sex education as predictor of sex knowledge acquisition: The mediating role of global self-esteem. Current Psychology, 38 (1), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9578-8

Rafferty, A. E., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Team change climate: A group-level analysis of the relationships among change information and change participation, role stressors, and wellbeing. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19 (5), 551–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903007869

Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of management, 39 (1), 110–135.

Rechter, E., & Sverdlik, N. (2016). Adolescents’ and teachers’ outlook on leisure activities: Personal values as a unifying framework. Personality and Individual Differences, 99 , 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.095

Reiss, S., Prentice, L., Schulte-Cloos, C., & Jonas, E. (2019). Organizational change as threat – from implicit anxiety to approach through procedural justice. Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 50 (2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015146225215

Rizzuto, T. E., Schwarz, A., & Schwarz, C. (2014). Toward a deeper understanding of IT adoption: A multilevel analysis. Information & Management, 51 (4), 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.02.005

Roczniewska, M., & Higgins, E. T. (2019). Messaging organizational change: How regulatory fit relates to openness to change through fairness perceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85 , 103882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103882

Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31 , 599–627. https://doi.org/10.5465/256461

Sanchez de Miguel, M., Lizaso, I., Larranaga, M., & Arrospide, J. J. (2015). Women bus drivers and organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28 (1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2013-0120

Santos Policarpo, R. V., Guimaraes e Borges, R. S., & Almada, L. (2018). Leadership and individual reactions to organizational change. Revista Ciencias Administrativas, 24 (2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5020/2318-0722.2018.7197

Saunders, M. N., & Thornhill, A. (2011). Researching sensitively without sensitizing: Using a card sort in a concurrent mixed method design to research trust and distrust. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5 (3), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.334

Schilling, A., Werr, A., Gand, S., & Sardas, J. C. (2012). Understanding professionals’ reactions to strategic change: The role of threatened professional identities. The Service Industries Journal, 32 (8), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2010.531269

Šedžiuvienė, N., & Vveinhardt, J. (2018). The reactions of post-soviet countries employees to changes carried out by organizations in higher education: cases of Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Belarusian state colleges. Montenegrin Journal of Economics , 225–235. https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845/2018.14-4.16

Seeger, M. W., Ulmer, R. R., Novak, J. M., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Post-crisis discourse and organizational change, failure and renewal. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18 (1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810510579869

Shahid, S. and Kundi, Y.M. (2021b), "Feel dragged out: a recovery perspective in the relationship between emotional exhaustion and entrepreneurial exit". Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2021b-0199

Shura, R. D., Rutherford, B. J., Fugett, A., & Lindberg, M. A. (2017). An exploratory study of attachments and posttraumatic stress in combat veterans. Current Psychology, 36 (1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9390-2

Stensaker, I. G., & Meyer, C. B. (2012). Change experience and employee reactions: Developing capabilities for change. Personnel Review . https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481211189974

Størseth, F. (2006). Changes at work and employee reactions: Organizational elements, job insecurity, and short-term stress as predictors for employee health and safety. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47 (6), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2006.00548.x

Straatmann, T., Kohnke, O., Hattrup, K., & Mueller, K. (2016). Assessing employees’ reactions to organizational change: An integrative framework of change-specific and psychological factors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52 (3), 265–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316655871

Stylianou, A. M., Counselman-Carpenter, E., & Redcay, A. (2019). Developing a financial literacy program with survivors of intimate partner violence: The voices of survivors. Social Work, 64 (4), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swz034

Surdu, I., Mellahi, K., Glaister, K. W., & Nardella, G. (2018). Why wait? Organizational learning, institutional quality and the speed of foreign market re-entry after initial entry and exit. Journal of World Business, 53 (6), 911–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.07.008

Svendsen, M., & Joensson, T. S. (2016). Transformational leadership and change related voice behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37 (3), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-0124

Tang, C., & Gao, Y. (2012). Intra-department communication and employees’ reaction to organizational change: The moderating effect of emotional intelligence. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, 3 (2), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/20408001211279210

Tavakoli, M. (2010). A positive approach to stress, resistance, and organizational change. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5 , 1794–1798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.366

Thirumaran, M., Dhavachelvan, P., & Aishwarya, D. (2013). An approach for evaluating the functional and non-functional change factors of web service using finite state machine. In 2013 International Conference on Recent Trends in Information Technology (ICRTIT) (pp. 674–679). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRTIT.2013.6844281

Thomson, N. B., III., Rawson, J. V., Slade, C. P., & Bledsoe, M. (2016). Transformation and transformational leadership: A review of the current and relevant literature for academic radiologists. Academic Radiology, 23 (5), 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.01.010

Tyler, T. R., & De Cremer, D. (2005). Process-based leadership: Fair procedures and reactions to organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (4), 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.001

Vakola, M. (2016). The reasons behind change recipients’ behavioral reactions: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31 (1), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2013-0058

Vakola, M., Armenakis, A., & Oreg, S. (2013). Reactions to organizational change from an individual differences perspective: A review of empirical research. In S. Oreg, A. Michel, & R. T. By (Eds.), The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee's perspective (pp. 95–122). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096690.008

Van der Smissen, S., Schalk, R., & Freese, C. (2013). Contemporary psychological contracts: How both employer and employee are changing the employment relationship. Management Revue, 24 (4), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1688/1861-9908_mrev_2013_04_Smissen

Van Dick, R., Ciampa, V., & Liang, S. (2018). Shared identity in organizational stress and change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23 , 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.11.005

Vantilborgh, T. (2015). Volunteers’ reactions to psychological contract fulfillment in terms of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect behavior. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26 (2), 604–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9441-6

Valitova, E., Starodubtsev, V., & Goryanova, L. (2015). Formative personalisation of students’ self-determination and employability. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 739–747.

Walk, M., & Handy, F. (2018). Job crafting as reaction to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54 (3), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318777227

Whelan-Barry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C. R. (2003). Strengthening organizational change processes: Recommendations and implications from a multilevel analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39 (2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886303256270

Whiting, S. W., Maynes, T. D., Podsakoff, N. P., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Effects of message, source, and context on evaluations of employee voice behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024871

Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 521–539 ,. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393565

Yan, B., & Jacobs, K. (2008). Evaluating employee responses to the lean enterprise system at a manufacturing company in Cape Town, South Africa. In 2008 Second International Conference on Future Generation Communication and Networking Symposia (Vol. 4, pp. 85–92). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FGCNS.2008.120

Zellars, K. and Tepper, B.J. (2003), “Beyond social exchange: new directions for organizational citizenship behavior theory and research”. In: Martocchio, J.J. and Ferris, G.R. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management . JAI Press, pp. 395–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22009-0

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by Universiti Sains Malaysia, Short Term Grant [Grant Number: 304/PMGT/6315513], for the Project entitled "The Efficiency of Variable Sampling Interval Scheme for the Multivariate Coefficient of Variation in Short Production Runs".

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Gelugor, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Khai Wah Khaw & Alhamzah Alnoor

Management Technical College, Southern Technical University, Basrah, Iraq

Alhamzah Alnoor & Nadia A. Atshan

Department of Business Administration, College of Administration and Economic, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq

Hadi AL-Abrrow

Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Victor Tiberius

Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11700, Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia

Yuvaraj Ganesan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alhamzah Alnoor .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

All the procedures adopted by the study, involving human participants, were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants of the study.

Conflict of interest

All the authors of this paper declare existence of no mutual conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Khaw, K.W., Alnoor, A., AL-Abrrow, H. et al. Reactions towards organizational change: a systematic literature review. Curr Psychol 42 , 19137–19160 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03070-6

Download citation

Accepted : 30 March 2022

Published : 13 April 2022

Issue Date : August 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03070-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Reactions to organizational change
• Research framework
• Research issues
• Systematic literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Attitude vs involvement: a systematic literature review at the intersection between engagement and innovation

European Journal of Innovation Management

ISSN : 1460-1060

Article publication date: 12 October 2020

Issue publication date: 12 October 2021

In a world where innovation became a “buzzword” and everyone within companies is required to foster innovation, the engagement of people toward innovation is fundamental to prompt individual motivation and actions to make innovation happen. However, despite the relevance of the relationship between engagement and innovation, the literature on the topic appears still fragmented. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the topic through a systematic literature review.

Design/methodology/approach

A final sample of 108 papers has been selected and analyzed through co-citation and text mining analyses. The former enabled the analysis of the structure of the theoretical foundation of the filed, while the latter facilitated a systematic and unbiased content-driven review of the literature.

The results of the analysis indicated two main areas of interest describing the relationship between engagement and innovation. On the one hand, there is the focus on “engagement as an attitude,” intended as the capacity of individuals to generate and realize innovation. On the other hand, there is a stream of literature focused on “engagement as involvement,” which refers to co-innovation paradigms, involving both internal and external stakeholders.

Research limitations/implications

From an academic perspective, this paper highlights the relevance of the “human-side” of innovation, proposing avenues for future research that dig into the relationship between people's engagement and innovation dynamics. Moreover, it shows how the recent developments in the innovation management literature are coherent with this emerging relevance of the human perspective in innovation.

Practical implications

From a practitioner’s perspective, this paper helps managers by highlighting the two different approaches that they can have in terms of engagement. The study aims to help them in identifying the kind of engagement they are looking for in their employees and other innovation stakeholder having the support to find relevant studies in that direction.

Originality/value

The study unveils how the evolution of both areas over the years is strictly related to the megatrends of innovation fields, which are the main areas of knowledge not covered yet. Therefore, a research agenda is proposed.

• Systematic literature review
• Involvement

Text mining

Co-citation.

Trabucchi, D. , Bellis, P. , Di Marco, D. , Buganza, T. and Verganti, R. (2021), "Attitude vs involvement: a systematic literature review at the intersection between engagement and innovation", European Journal of Innovation Management , Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1730-1762. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2020-0171

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Daniel Trabucchi, Paola Bellis, Diletta Di Marco, Tommaso Buganza and Roberto Verganti

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

In a fast-changing world, overcrowded by ideas and opportunities, one of the biggest challenges for companies is not to generate ideas but to engage people toward innovation ( Verganti, 2017 ). Organizations operate and compete in a complex and turbulent environment because of major forces such as digital transformations and cross-industry global trends like big data and social media ( Matzler et al. , 2018 ; Lee et al. , 2012 ). All these factors provide an incredible amount of possibilities for innovation in terms of new products, the value chain and the business models ( Smedley, 2017 ).

In understanding how to deal with this environment, a lot has been said about the process of innovation and the strategies to improve the quantity and the quality of innovation initiatives ( Brenton and Levin, 2012 ). Innovation scholars focused mainly on the process to foster innovation, considered as a defined sequence of decision points (Cooper, 1990; Krishnan and Ulrich, 2001 ). Therefore, much attention has been put on how to execute such processes in a fast and iterative way to navigate the complexity of a highly dynamic market environment. However, these approaches define innovation development as a deliberate business process which involves scores of generic decisions ( Krishnan and Ulrich, 2001 ) and metrics to assess performances ( Slater et al. , 2014 ). They neglect entirely the role of people as members of a social system ( Rogers, 1962 ), who can bring in the process not only their capabilities and skills ( Shane and Ulrich, 2004 ) but also their ideas, values and perspectives ( Brenton and Levin, 2012 ).

Nevertheless, innovation is not just generating ideas and pooling technical skills within a cross-functional team. It also requires moments of playfulness ( Mainemelis and Ronson, 2006 ), time, immersion and reflection ( Brenton and Levin, 2012 ). Simultaneously, innovation is also about volunteerism, energy and motivation ( O'Connor and McDermott, 2004 ). Hence, in the current environment, a deeper understanding of how people engage, make sense and collaborate in innovation appears fundamental (e.g. Alblooshi et al. , 2020 ; Bellis and Verganti, 2020 ).

In particular, people's engagement appears as crucial to spur an individual's motivation and action in making innovation happen. In a way, engagement seems to reflect a positive psychological state of motivation with behavioral manifestation, both cognitive and emotional, resulting in the active involvement of a person ( Shuck and Wollard, 2010 ). Still, what is the current state of research at the intersection between engagement and innovation? The present study aims to explore such a research question.

The interest in “engagement” as a research topic is dated back at the end of the last century ( Kahn, 1990 ). Nevertheless, today as never before, the understanding of what moves an employee to provide their contribution to business processes has become relevant and it is even more appropriate for what concerns innovation. The purpose of the present study is to provide a systemic overview of what has been said in the field and provide a critical analysis that may help innovation scholars and innovation managers in highlighting relevant spots for future research. More precisely, the paper explores how the literature sheds light on the relationship between engagement and innovation through a systematic literature review. While in academic literature, the engagement–innovation relationship appears still fragmented and does not provide a single study comprehensively analyzing the topic ( Janssen, 2003 ; Shuck and Wollard, 2010 ). Thus, the paper aims to understand how scholars conceptualized and studied engagement in innovation activities.

The study's results indicate how people’s engagement may be different according to the specific objective of the innovation activities. Through this work, we identify two kinds of engagement: engagement as involvement and engagement as an attitude. The former identifies engagement as a form of active collaboration toward the innovation initiative. While the latter identifies engagement as a mindset that people need to adopt and develop in order to embrace innovation challenges.

Leveraging on these findings, the study aims to contribute to both theory and practice. Form a theoretical perspective, the study aims to clarify the engagement–innovation relationship, providing insights about how the two kinds of engagement differ and how they can support innovation activities. Besides, building on the findings proposed, the study presents a research agenda for further exploration in the field.

From a managerial perspective, the study supports managers by suggesting how people’s engagement may differ according to the specific innovation purposes. More precisely, according to our findings, engagement might have different nuances: from only involving people to collaborate on the one side until nurturing their mindset and attitude toward making innovation happen.

Finally, the paper is structured as follows. First, an overview about engagement literature is provided, it is crucial to understand the topic's state of the art before to relate it to the one of innovation. Then, we introduce the methodology followed to perform the systematic literature review. Subsequently, the results are presented as well as both kinds of engagement (involvement and attitude) are introduced. Finally, a discussion of the main findings is provided before to conclude with a research agenda for further development in the field.

Theoretical background

The engagement concept dates back to the 1990s when it started to attract academic interest. During its development, the idea of engagement has been attached to several different definitions ranging from “personal engagement” to “job engagement” till “employee engagement” when it refers explicitly to organizational contexts ( Kahn, 1990 ; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004 ; Robinson, 2004 ; Alfes et al. , 2010 ).

The seminal definition is attributable to Kahn (1990) , who defines the concept as “ people exhibit engagement when they become physically involved in tasks, whether alone or with others; they are cognitively vigilant focused, and attentive; they are emotionally connected to their work and others in the service of their work .” Referring to Welch's (2011) engagement review, the evolution of engagement can be contextualized into three different periods or “waves.”

The first wave has been mainly characterized by Kahn mentioned above ( 1990 ). The third wave is defined by Welch (2011) that linked engagement with other disciplines' contributions coming from human resources, workplace behavior and psychology ( Welch, 2011 ).

The first wave has been mainly characterized by Kahn (1990) , imprinting with a shared focus on engagement as physical–vigor, emotional–dedication and cognitive–absorption ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004 ). While “vigor” implies “high energy levels and mental resilience when working,” “dedication” refers to “being strongly involved in one's work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm and challenge”; finally, “absorption” means “to be fully concentrated and engrossed in one's work” ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004 ). This first wave represents the seminal work on engagement, highly oriented to the organizational context, and the relationship between people and their job.

The second wave is evident in the first half of the 2000s when another influential definition was coined from Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) . They considered engagement in the organizational behavior context defining it as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.” Robinson (2004) also contributed to the second publication wave by defining the concept of engagement as “a positive employee attitude towards the organization and its values, involving awareness of business context, and work to improve job and organizational effectiveness.” It is evident how, consistently with the first wave, this second group is characterized by the term “positive,” which defined the turning point with respect to the focus from negative consequences of work attitudes popular in that time (i.e. job burnout). Such a switch triggered the advent of academic works on engagement starting from this period: one the most popular is Saks (2006) , who defined organizational support and job characteristics as job engagement antecedents. This second wave highlights the role of a positive dimension in the organization and, more broadly, the business context.

Welch (2011) initiated the third and last publication wave. It began with further scientific interest intensification near the end of the decade when the engagement concept started to be linked to other disciplines' contributions from human resources, workplace behavior and psychology ( Welch, 2011 ). The primary engagement conceptualization production ends with this third wave, leaving the academia with a plethora of nonexhaustive definitions and a widely accepted taxonomy ( Schaufeli et al. , 2002 ).

Multiple academic conceptualizations are underlining its multifaceted nature due to the presence of constructs intersecting social and psychological sciences ( Robinson, 2004 ; Alfes et al. , 2010 ), highlighting this difficulty in finding a reliable and well-comprehensive definition and a subsequent valid measurement system. The concept of engagement is an integration of behavioral, emotional and cognitive components, encompassing ideas such as energy, rational and emotive attachment, deep connection, positive attitude and psychological presence ( Rich et al. , 2010 ).

Recently, organizations began to adopt a more open approach to engagement by considering it as a substantial psychological adaptation and involvement from the part of employees to the organization ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004 ). This shift can be attributed to how the engagement notion has quickly evolved within the practitioner community, hampering the understanding of work engagement for practical purposes ( Anitha, 2014 ). The concept of engagement, given the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution ( Klaus, 2016 ), has passed from the definition of mere physical exploitation of the employees to a desirable active espousal of the entire “person” to the work sphere in modern organizations.

Thus, nowadays, engagement can be considered an essential condition for employees and the organization they work for ( Saks, 2006 ). Indeed, researchers interpret engagement as a property of organizations, that is, employees throughout the organization may share perceptions that members of the organization collectively invest their full selves into their work roles ( Dvir et al. , 2002 ). For example, motivational states such as engagement are highly transferrable to other members of the organization ( Karanika-Murray et al. , 2015 ). Given the fact that organizational engagement involves psychological processes occurring within individuals as they attribute meaning to the environment in which they work and transform it. At the same time, they disseminate it; for this paper, we consider engagement at the individual level ( Seibert et al. , 2004 ).

Thus, employee engagement means that organizations are now endowing their efforts at mobilizing the motivation of their human capital, even creating a potential source of innovation to contribute and help drive the organization forward ( Bessant, 2003 ). It has also been indeed defined as a positive capability to foster mind-openness and out-of-the-box thinking, making individuals more willing to achieve meaningful innovations, for themselves and ultimately for the whole organization ( Eldor, 2017 ; Jena and Memon, 2018 ; Jung and Yoon, 2018 ).

The benefits of highly engaged and innovative employees are clear from numerous innovation management studies ( Chughtai and Buckley, 2011 ; Janssen, 2000 ; Oldham and Cummings, 1996 ; Robinson and Schroeder, 2004 ; Teerikangas and Valikangas, 2013 ). It implies that academic interest has slightly started to concentrate not only on how to enable employees to be engaged in their work but also how to be too motivated in creating innovation ( De Spiegelaere et al. , 2014 ; Verona and Prandelli, 2002 ; Füller, 2006 ).

Although the increasing current interest nested within the engagement–innovation relationship, academic literature evidence is still fragmented and does not provide a single study comprehensively analyzing the topic ( Janssen, 2003 ; Shuck and Wollard, 2010 ). Thus, providing an exhaustive analysis of the relationship between engagement and innovation through a bibliometric systematic literature review is pivotal. In completing this research, our literature review's main driver is to aspire to give an innovative framework to answer how the literature has contributed to shedding light on the relationship between engagement and innovation.

Research design

Systematic literature reviews are widely diffused in the innovation literature. They focus on both broad and specific topics using traditional (e.g. Lill et al. , 2020 ) and bibliometric approaches (e.g. Suominen et al. , 2019 ). This research also relies on both approaches using co-citation and text mining techniques, as explained later.

Sample selection

To reach the research aims, a structured approach to review the literature has been applied ( Tranfield et al. , 2003 ). To reach the final sample of focal articles, this study adopted a systematic approach (e.g. Randhawa et al. , 2016 ; Magistretti et al. , 2020 ), summarized in Figure 1 , with a final sample of 108 articles published in leading business journals (indexed in Scopus). The research phase was conducted during 2019; therefore, the literature search is updated to the end of 2018.

The review process was conducted by searching the SciVerse Scopus online database for scientific articles. This database was chosen for its completeness since being less selective than other potentially leads to a larger selection of international outlets, which in turn convinced the authors to select it as the preferred choice for its fit with such a cross-cutting topic as engagement in innovation (e.g. Ghezzi et al. , 2018 ).

The first step aimed to identify relevant concepts to the area of investigation (definition of the keywords for the literature search). As previously mentioned, our research aims to focus on the intersection between the concepts of “innovation” and “engagement,” which are the first two keywords used for the search. When the object of the innovation process is the people, their behaviors and how they act within an organization, the literature often refers to the term “change management” rather than “innovation.” Therefore, to have a broader view of the topic, we also included the keywords “change management” and “engagement” as queries. The search of the two sets of keywords in the field of “Abstract, Title and Keywords” brought to 4,021 initial results. The following steps limited the results to the area (“Business, Management, and Accounting”) and the language (English), bringing to 929 documents. A specific further filter for the time frame was included (1990–2018), considering the available papers published in succession to the seminal paper introducing the concept of engagement ( Kahn, 1990 ). For the final step of the screening process, the authors have independently reviewed all the abstracts to identify the definitive sample.

Among the abstracts reviewed by the whole pool of authors, only 108 papers have been considered potentially aligned with the research objective of this study. Most important, as exclusion criteria, the authors considered that other papers used the word “engagement” with different meanings, such as a synonymous for commitment in an investment ( Nemet, 2009 ) or not related to innovation activities (e.g. Van Looy et al. , 2004 ). The papers resulting in the final sample have been read and analyzed qualitatively and through quantitative tools: the co-citation analysis and text mining.

The co-citation analysis

References in a paper may show silent relationships ( Gmür, 2003 ; Small, 1973 ). Co-citation is a technique that measures the frequency with which two items (articles, authors, sources, etc.) are cited together. It is becoming more and more popular in the management field, e.g. in innovation (e.g. Randhawa et al. , 2016 ) or business ethics (e.g. Calabretta et al. , 2011 ). The final goal is to provide an indicator of the affinity and proximity between the two items ( White and Griffin, 1981 ).

Therefore, co-citation was used to analyze the structure of the theoretical foundation of the filed. It was used at the paper level, explaining at the same time multiple contributions by a single author. At first, a network is drawn showing the links between the most co-cited papers. In order to increase the network readability of the selected sample of 108 papers, articles with less than six citations were excluded (e.g. Randhawa et al. , 2016 ).

A smart local moving algorithm is then used to analyze the network ( Waltman and van Eck, 2013 ) and to provide a cluster analysis of related publications ( Waltman et al. , 2010 ).

Software sets the number of clusters based on the resolution parameter. The parameter was added to avoid the failure of identifying small groups ( Fortunato and Barthélemy, 2007 ). Indeed, the algorithm is based on the modularity function, which is famous among network scientists (see Fortunato, 2010 ). Nevertheless, it is affected by the resolution limit problem, which is here limited by the resolution parameter.

The text mining analysis

Text mining aims to find detailed conceptual insights through an unstructured ontological discovery using the words as the unit of analysis. It shows a systematic and unbiased content-driven review of the literature (e.g. Biesenthal and Wilden, 2014 ; Randhawa et al. , 2016 ). It is becoming more and more diffused in innovation research ( Antons et al. , 2020 ).

To accomplish the result of this last quantitative analysis, textual data mining software Leximacer 4.0 was used (e.g. Randhawa et al. , 2016 ).

Previous research showed that these tools present a close agreement with expert judgment ( Campbell et al. , 2011 ; Rooney, 2005 ). The analyses performed by software aim to highlight the most frequently used concepts in a text and to define the relationships between them.

Software has been used to systematically reveal critical concepts in the field through the identification of seed words (thematic analysis of the documents) that have been linked through the frequency and the co-occurrence within their contexts (semantic analysis) ( Mathies and Burford, 2011 ).

Descriptive results

Even if early investigation at the intersection between engagement and innovation occurred in the 1990s (e.g. Khan, 1990 ; Smith, 1994 ), only in the early 2000s, the growth rate of studies about engagement in innovation increases significantly ( Figure 2 ). In particular, Alfes et al. (2010) were the first researchers to investigate engagement within the field of innovation; their study seems to be the trigger of knowledge at the intersection of the two major domains.

There is a wide variety of journals that in the timespan abovementioned published studies around the fields of engagement and innovation. As represented in Figure 2 , there are journals from various fields of knowledge such as psychology ( European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology ), innovation management ( Creativity and Innovation Management , Journal of Product Innovation Management and International Journal of Innovation Management ) or HR management ( Human Resource Management International Digest and International Journal of Human Resource Management ) to others more specific context such as health care ( Journal of Health, Organization and Management and Journal of Healthcare Management ) and tourism ( Tourism Management ).

The field seems quite sparse: overall, 19 journals are present in the database and the most popular in the area has only four papers. Something similar emerges from the analysis of the ten most cited articles in the sample ( Table 1 ): they have been published across nine different journals, from very different fields such as marketing ( Journal of Interactive Marketing ), strategy and management ( Strategy and Leadership and California Management Review ) and human resources ( International Journal of Human Resource Management ).

Going more into detail on the descriptive analysis of the document's sample, further considerations can be made about the methodology adopted and the subject of the engagement in the research study.

As reported in Figure 2 , the studies have been classified as quantitative (studies based on survey and statistical inferences), qualitative (studies based on methodologies such as case study or ethnographic research) and conceptual. From the descriptive analysis emerges how the distribution of the three categories is quite homogeneous, although quantitative studies are more numerous. One last analysis focuses on the “subjects” of the engagement. In particular, the studies focus on two main categories: internals or externals to the organization. On the one side, the internal ones are employees or managers and the focus is on innovation within their organization. On the other side, there are external players, such as customers or stakeholders, that the company aims to engage in the innovation process. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the two categories across the overall sample and let emerge how most of the studies are focused on internals to the organization.

In the co-citation analysis ( Figure 3 ), besides representing the original papers that have contributed to the literature of the engagement–innovation relationship, four clusters emerge showing different academic streams that represent the roots of the research study on commitment in innovation.

Table 2 briefly summarizes and presents the paper of each cluster.

It is essential to note the very high distance of the fourth cluster to the others, indicating the high gap recognized by the algorithm between the first three clusters (dealing with something internal to companies) and this last one ( Van Eck and Waltman, 2014 ). It seems that two main areas exist among the roots of engagement in innovation. On the one hand, papers are building on engagement's subjective view, leveraging the original definitions of engagement mentioned at the beginning, taking a work behavior perspective and dealing mainly with the employees. On the other hand, research on engagement in innovation deals with open innovation, moving the attention outside the company's borders.

Therefore, we used the emergence of these two views on the topic to divide our sample into two subsamples. Still, these two clusters deal – generally – with different kinds of players, but, on top of that, they have significant differences in how they consider the concept of engagement.

The first is related to the study of people and organizational behavior toward engagement. Therefore, it has been labeled as “ Engagement as an attitude ” and includes clusters blue, red and yellow. The subsample involves all those studies that explore, from the people's perspective, how engagement is directly related to individuals' mindset and provide insights to harm or enhance such a behavioral phenomenon. According to this, within this cluster, it is possible to distinguish two main kinds of studies: those more focused on people's dynamics as a human being (“Human Perspective”) and those more focused on organizational dynamics (“Organization Perspective”).

The second includes those studies focused on engagement as a collaboration with other players, which could be even external to the company and regards only the green cluster. This cluster has been labeled as “ Engagement as involvement ,” given that it deals with concepts of co-innovation as the result of collaborative efforts between either employees or agents external to the company. Here, engagement is meant as “involvement” of stakeholders more than “engagement” as originally intended in this study; moreover, innovation does not generate through the engagement as a specific state of mind but instead through the collaboration of different actors that allows the integration of competencies, knowledge and perspectives.

Therefore, we clustered the papers in the sample according to these labels, having 35 papers regarding the first one and 73 regarding the second one. On them, we re-run the co-citation analysis.

The blue cluster (“Defining Engagement”) complements the insight drafted for the first analysis, adding another paper dealing with engagement, its antecedents and outcomes conceptualization ( Christian, 2011 ). It also contains two papers dealing with slightly different concepts: the former ( Kahn, 1992 ) conceptualizing psychological presence at work and the latter ( Hackman and Oldham, 1976 ) dealing with a similar but narrower conceptualization to the academic introduction.

The red cluster (“Defining Innovative Work Behavior”) follows the previously defined logic, including this time two papers dealing with the definition of innovative work behavior as a consequence of engagement ( Janssen, 2003 ) and mathematical rules to validate models ( Sobel, 1982 ).

Finally, the yellow cluster (“Defining Workforce Engagement Framework”) is added with two papers ( Mauno et al. , 2007 ; Bakker et al. , 2008 ) dealing with the relationship between engagement, job demand and job resources and three ( West and Farr, 1990 ; Axtell et al. , 2000 ; Hammond et al. , 2011 ) dealing with predictors and antecedents to innovative work behavior.

Chesbrough’s (2003) seminal work on the open innovation paradigm is by far the most representative work within the network, indicating open innovation as the main academic foundation of the “Engagement as Involvement” subsample of papers. It appears in the same cluster named “Defining (User) Open Innovation” together with two papers dealing with the importance of engaging users in open innovation processes ( Franke and Shah, 2003 ; Von Hippel, 2005 ).

The other cluster instead (“Defining Customer Co-Creation”) deals with four papers defining the value and the proper management of co-creation processes with customers ( Vargo and Lusch, 2014 ; Payne et al. , 2008 ; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004 ; Hollebeek et al. , 2014 ).

The analysis also confirms that the reference literature related to the “Engagement as Involvement” papers' field is much less concentrated than reference literature related to the “Engagement as an Attitude” papers' field, being its network much weaker.

The analyses reveal that the theoretical basis of the research study on the relationship between engagement and innovation remains within the research field itself when considering both categories of papers. Nonetheless, references remain proxies for concepts' analysis, so that the text mining analysis has been performed to provide also a detailed analysis of the concept underlying in the set of papers chosen.

This methodology has been used to approach a deeper level of analysis by decoding topics on which the literature has been focused. The output of the analysis consists of overlapping bubbles representing different themes encompassing concepts sharing a related meaning; the circle size indicates how many concepts have been clustered together to form a given theme. The text mining analysis has been performed on the two subsamples above, respectively, the “Engagement as an Attitude” and the “Engagement as Involvement” sets of papers.

Engagement as involvement

The analysis of the 73 papers through the text mining algorithm ( Figure 5 ) immediately lets to identify the “co-Innovation” concept, defined as a paradigm “ where internal, external, collaborative, co-creative ideas can converge to create shared organizational value ” ( Lee et al. , 2012 ), as the dominant topic which can indeed be studied taking an (1) external or (2) internal perspective to the company.

The first macrocluster of papers (“ External Co-Innovation Perspective ”) represents the different companies’ external factors enabling a co-innovation paradigm along with the definition of the process design ( Table 3 ).

A total of three microthemes emerge from the representation, including each one or more bubbles, such as engagement, stakeholders (community and company and value) and innovation (innovation and process and product and project).

The second macrocluster, named “ Internal Co-Innovation Perspective ” is differentiated from the first one as co-innovation is now intended to occur within the boundaries of companies ( Table 4 ).

This second cluster lets emerge three microthemes within the representation, including each one or more bubbles, such as engagement, innovation management (study and management and project) and employee (work and change).

Engagement as an attitude

The two outputs performed on “Engagement as an Attitude” papers shown in Figure 6 profoundly differ from the parallel result for “Engagement as Involvement” papers. The word “Innovation” takes for this category (“Attitude”) a more individualistic meaning, intending the capacity to generate, promote and realize ideas, namely, innovative work behavior ( Chughtai and Buckely, 2011 ; Bhatnagar, 2012 ; Maria Stock et al. , 2017 ; Jena and Memon, 2018 ; Jung and Yoon, 2018 ; Pham-Tai et al. , 2018 ) as well as the capacity to recognize and to solve inefficiencies through the introduction of new solutions ( De Spiegeleare et al. , 2015 ; Garg and Dhar, 2017 ).

Engagement covers a fundamental role representing an attitude whose manifestation is making people capable of “thinking out-of-the-box and becoming open-minded,” generating innovative solutions ( Eldor, 2017 ). Due to the individualistic nature of the type of innovation studied and to the focus mainly within the company boundaries, the output displays much more interconnected network with respect to the previous one. Specifically, the analysis pointed out two different clusters associated with a “Human perspective” and an “Organization perspective.”

The first cluster, representing the “ Organization Perspective ,” deepens specifically the influence that the organization could have on employee engagement dynamics and therefore on employees’ innovativeness.

The second cluster, on the “ Human Perspective ,” frames the concept of innovation, identifying the common processes that are influenced from high engagement levels, named, idea creation, promotion and implementation.

Engagement and innovation: a relationship evolving over time

This paper aims to understand how the literature sheds light on the relationship between engagement and innovation. We approached this goal with a systematic literature review, aiming to understand how scholars conceptualized and studied engagement in innovation activities (see Tables 5 and 6 ).

This analysis let emerge a strong time dependency, showing how – in the last 30 years – the role and the meaning of engagement changed significantly.

We need to go back at the beginning of the 1990s to have one of the most accepted definitions of engagement ( Kahn, 1990 ), showing the various nuances of this concept. As anticipated in the second section of the paper, the roots of this concept come from the psychological world, defining the pure meaning of engagement.

Still, if we move on in the years, we will have the chance to see two parallel evolution lines: innovation management changes and the perception of engagement by innovation scholars that changes accordingly.

The last century's end has been characterized by two main streams of research in the innovation literature. On the one hand, scholars focused mainly on technological dynamics (e.g. Anderson and Tushman, 1990 ; Bower and Christensen, 1995 ), showing the main innovation trigger considered back in the days: technologies that enable new products, services and processes.

On the other hand, innovation scholars were mainly interested in insights from the market, studying customers' needs (e.g. Von Hippel, 1986 ).

The technical roots of innovation management studies may be behind the lack of studies dealing with engagement back in the days if not with some initial studies related – for example – to the alignment with the employees ( Smith, 1994 ). Innovation was related to a specific job position, being in the R&D or the marketing function.

The new century saw the rise of what is still considered the leading paradigm for innovation studies: open innovation (OI). Chesbrough (2003) proposed a different view to see innovation activities. Innovation should not be confined to a specific function and even more: it should not be confined within the organization boundaries. After some years – the time to let OI become the leading paradigm (e.g. Chesbrough et al. , 2020 ) – innovation scholars start paying attention to how to “engage” people in the innovation process, privileging the “involvement” nature of engagement. As previously mentioned, this concerns both people within the firm (e.g. De Weerd-Nederhof et al. , 2007 ; Ramaswamy, 2009 ; Michaelides, 2011 ) and people outside the firm, other stakeholders (e.g. Sawhney et al. , 2005 ; Ramaswamy, 2008 ).

Therefore, we may suggest a strong parallelism between the rise of the OI paradigm and the focus on the rise of the “Engagement as Involvement” stream. This is highly coherent even with the two subclusters emerging from our results (“External Co-Innovation Perspective” and “Internal Co-Innovation Perspective”). The literature at the intersection between engagement and innovation seems to embrace the main OI message focusing on the involvement of any players that may benefit to the innovation process, both within and outside the firm's boundaries.

Still, in the following years, the world and the innovation's issues emerged. Innovation now has an engagement issue: some people join the innovation process but that is not their primary job so we need to find ways to engage them.

At the beginning of the last decade, we see the emergence of an individual perspective at the intersection between engagement and innovation. It is not just a matter of being engaged in the company's innovation process. It is a matter of having the chance to foster innovation at work. This goes along with the study of a higher level of autonomy – for example – to increase the engagement level ( Arrowsmith and Parker, 2013 ). This is highly coherent with the emergence of employee-driven innovation (e.g. Høyrup, 2010 ). Engagements seem to be linked with “job design,” being engaged by having a more active role in what you do as an individual within the company (e.g. De Spiegelaere et al. , 2014 ; De Spiegelaere et al. , 2015 ).

The end of the 1900s saw the rise of the design-driven literature in management studies, with the initial rise of design thinking ( Brown, 2008 ). The design was meant to support the innovation process by encouraging wild ideas and finding new possible innovations. Still, over the years, it proved to be a great tool to let individuals discover and foster their creativity and creative confidence ( Kelley and Kelley, 2013 ; Dell’Era et al. , 2020 ). Scholars start suggesting that the relationship between engagement and innovation indeed can be mediated by individual creativity ( Martinez, 2015 ; Koch et al. , 2015 ; Kumar and Raghavendran, 2015 ). This movement toward the “confidence” in doing innovation shows the substantial shift from a view on engagement as “pure involvement” to an actual attitude. Engagement in innovation means having the right attitudes contributing to a cultural dimension (e.g. Kumar and Raghavendran, 2015 ; Koch et al. , 2015 ; Howaldt et al. , 2016 ).

Last evidence let emerge a final shift from the organizational culture to the organizational climate ( Jena and Memon, 2018 ; Pham-Thai et al. , 2018 ; Tuzovic et al. , 2018 ). People need to feel to be in the right place to foster innovation.

This is coherent with the latest developments in the innovation field. On the one hand, we see the rise of agile approaches that go beyond the process and enter the organizational dynamics. Agility is not anymore just a matter of project management; it is a matter of setting an organizational climate where people perceive the opportunity to foster continuous innovation (e.g. Bäcklander, 2019 ). On the other hand, we see the rising need for new directions rather than solutions and this has a secure connection with the organizational climate. We live in a world overcrowded by ideas; to be innovative, we need new directions that overcome the abundance of solutions with something truly meaningful ( Bellis and Verganti, 2020 ; Verganti, 2017 ). In doing so, companies need to set the right climate to let people engage and offer their constructive views on the innovative direction through active criticism and building on the others (e.g. Bellis and Verganti, 2019 ; Verganti and Norman, 2019 ).

Therefore, we are proposing a strong parallelism between the latest evolutions of the innovation management landscape and the second cluster we see emerging in our analysis, the “Engagement as an Attitude.” Once again, we can see a direct link between the subclusters emerging from the text mining analysis. The human side of this “attitude” is not only highly related to the individual perspective emerging in the innovation field ( Arrowsmith and Parker, 2013 ) but also to the design-driven literature that sees the innovation process as an inside–out process that starts from the innovator as a human being ( Verganti, 2017 ). Similarly, the second subcluster, which takes the organizational perspective, is highly correlated with the evolution that organizations are facing, from the agile culture ( Bäcklander, 2019 ) to the need to have an organizational climate coherent with what innovation needs ( Bellis and Verganti, 2019 ; Verganti and Norman, 2019 ).

In the current world, engagement is not anymore just a matter of being involved in something and it is not even just a matter of the right “culture,” but it is a matter of an individual attitude that takes place in organizations with the right climate.

Innovation scholars, probably, still need to explore in-depth this kind of engagement, and our work proposes a research agenda that may help in this direction.

Call for future research

This critical review of the engagement in innovation activities let emerge two things. On the one hand, the engagement concept had a steady evolution over the years, mainly connected with the megatrends of the innovation field. At the same time, we can see ( Figure 2 ) growing attention to the topic in the last decade, even though it remains a relatively small field.

Still, the latest trends in the innovation field – such the movements from solutions to meanings ( Verganti, 2017 ) and from process-oriented models to people-oriented studies – anticipate a growing relevance of the engagement of people in innovation activities. The reasonings at the basis of this paper suggest that innovation mangers, in the next years, will have to prove themselves as able to engage people and create a proper culture in their organizations to foster innovation.

Therefore, we suggest a call for research to increase the focus on the human side of innovation, giving relevance to engagement in innovation activities is proposed.

In particular, we suggest researchers to focus their attention on the basis of two different rationales. On the one hand – moving attention to people rather than processes – identifying as the unit of analysis: individuals, teams or organizations. On the other hand, addressing the kind of engagement we want to target: “Engagement as Involvement” in the innovation activities or “Engagement as an Attitude.”

The unit of analysis needs to be highly considered. How can we engage individuals in the innovation process? The design literature tells us a lot about the power of working on something, and we know that individual characteristics play a role in individual engagement. Still, innovation managers need to understand what moves the employee, how the individual may be collectively engaged in innovative projects that he/she may not have conceived from the beginning. The same reasoning can shift to a higher level of aggregation. Indeed, innovation is often done through the involvement of various people. The leadership literature tells a lot about team dynamics but again how can innovation managers deal with the engagement of a group of individuals working on the same project? Finally, there is also the organization's perspective that needs to be considered. The culture and the climate play a role in the engagement of individuals within a complex social system like an organization. This level deserves particular attention as well.

These three layers should be matched and studied according to the type of engagement we are dealing with.

“Engagement as an Attitude” needs to be further exploited through all these levels and innovation managers still need a lot of answers. How can they stimulate engagement in people? What are the behaviors that stimulate engagement? What are the main drivers for engagement? And the main barriers? How do “engaged” people behave? What are the typical interactions between “engaged” people? How can we present ideas, projects and visions in engaging ways? What are the tools that enhance engagement? These are just possible questions that innovation scholars should go through to enlarge the human side of innovation considered the engagement of people while working on innovation projects.

Similar questions may be re-formulated looking at the other kinds of engagement defined in this paper: “Engagement as Involvement.” Not considering the personal attitude toward engagement, we still need to understand how to involve people in innovation projects appropriately and all the previous questions may be re-formulated with this goal in mind.

This list of questions does not aim to be exhaustive anyhow; they represent a possible starting point to enlarge the current view of innovation studies aiming to take a broader human perspective.

Moreover, it is crucial to consider the changes also in the data gathering and data analysis techniques, rather than focusing only on how the innovation field changed. In other words, the vast majority of the studies in the article are based on self-reported measures analyzed through traditional statistical methods. Obviously, these methods proved the accuracy over the years and worth to be further explored. Nevertheless, we also need to consider alternate methods. Self-reported measures need to deal with various kinds of intrinsic biases, which may become even more relevant in dealing with engagement. In our daily life, we create an enormous amount of data, from how we use our computer to what we write on social media and the digital services we enjoy. Digital data – created for different purposes rather than research – proved to be valuable for commercial and research purposes ( Trabucchi and Buganza, 2019 ). Researchers may think about innovative ways also to measure engagement – obviously in respect of all the data policies and privacy laws – but developing methodological innovation in terms of data gathering and data analysis may open new and relevant ways to study how people behave in doing innovation.

Despite all the studies reported aims at framing the present literature into a model, our work is not without limitations. The research approach employed for gathering and selecting the reviewed studies may not totally avoid any loss of information, as relevant studies might have been excluded from the sample for inconsistency with the methodology applied. The authors are aware that applying to the study a more inclusive Scopus database, together with identifying a more detailed multistep process could potentially enrich knowledge in the field for future development and possibly reduce the accidental biases. Further insights on how to stimulate and assess engagement inside the organizations could foster the willingness to invest in such aspect for companies aiming at strengthening their purpose in producing more innovative products and organizations.

Nowadays, innovation pace is at its highest, reaching levels that make people feeling overwhelmed by innovation initiatives ( Verganti, 2017 ). More and more often, people tend to link innovation with “danger” rather than “opportunity” ( Zhexembayeva, 2020 ). Therefore, the engagement of people in innovation is one of the biggest challenges organizations are facing. This study offers a new view at the intersection between engagement and innovation. It explores the overlapping of these two streams and highlights what has been written and how it evolved coherently with the innovation management world.

Our study contributes to the current debate in two different ways. Taking an academic perspective, the chance to highlight the labels “Engagement as Involvement” and “Engagement as an Attitude” enhances the scholarly debate and offers a theoretical contribution that may push forward future research, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. The chance to distinguish between these two labels and the systematization of the literature may help the stream at the intersection between engagement and innovation to evolve building on these two perspectives. The present study identified what enables and defined the two “kinds” of engagement. Still, much more need to be explored about how to nurture and implement such engagement dynamics to sustain innovation and the people to make it happen. In the concluding part, our study proposes a research agenda that may help in this direction.

Taking a practitioner’s perspective, this review helps innovation managers better understand what “engaging people in innovation” means. “Engagement as Involvement” and “Engagement as an Attitude” are both relevant as never before. It means that people need not only feel just an attitude toward innovation but also to perceive to be a part of the innovation process and to be in an environment with the right climate. This study has two main takeaways for managers. On the one hand, it helps them go deeper into the concept of engagement through the labels and the subclusters that highlight different perspectives and nuances. On the other hand, this study may offer a compass for them to find relevant studies that explore the various kinds of engagement, helping them in accessing and exploring the literature at the intersection between engagement and innovation.

The filtering process and definition of the final database

Descriptive results of the sample

The output of the co-citation analysis on the whole sample of 105 papers with minimum citations count equal to 6

The output of the co-citation analysis on the whole subsample of 35 “Attitude”-labeled papers with minimum citations count equal to 5 and the output of the co-citation analysis on the whole subsample of 73 “Involvement”-labeled papers with minimum citations count equal to 5

The output of the text mining analysis on the whole subsample of “Involvement-” clustered papers. Topics of co-innovation emerge clearly, both toward the organization (internal co-innovation) and the external world (external co-innovation)

The output of the text mining analysis on the subsample of “Attitude-” clustered papers. Topics related both to the organizational and human level emerge as relevant to nurture engagement as an attitude

Most cited papers in the sample

Description of the four clusters

The summary of the external co-innovation cluster

The summary of the internal co-innovation cluster

The summary of the organization perspective cluster

The summary of human perspective

Due to the great number of references, in the list there are only the references cited in the next, all the other are available upon request.

Agarwal , R. and Selen , W. ( 2009 ), “ Dynamic capability building in service value networks for achieving service innovation ”, Decision Sciences , Vol. 40 No. 3 , pp. 431 - 475 .

Alblooshi , M. , Shamsuzzaman , M. and Haridy , S. ( 2020 ), “ The relationship between leadership styles and organisational innovation: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis ”, European Journal of Innovation Management . doi: 10.1108/EJIM-11-2019-0339 .

Alfes , K. , Truss , C. , Soane , E. , Rees , C. and Gatenby , M. ( 2010 ), CIPD Research Report: Creating an Engaged Workforce , Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development , London .

Anderson , P. and Tushman , M.L. ( 1990 ), “ Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 35 No. 4 , pp. 604 - 633 .

Anitha , J . ( 2014 ), “ Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance ”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , Vol. 63 No. 3 , pp. 308 - 323 .

Antons , D. , Grünwald , E. , Cichy , P. and Salge , T.O. ( 2020 ), “ The application of text mining methods in innovation research: current state, evolution patterns, and development priorities ”, R&D Management , Vol. 50 No. 3 , pp. 329 - 351 .

Arrowsmith , J. and Parker , J. ( 2013 ), “ The meaning of a employee engagement for the values and roles of the HRM function ”, International Journal of Human Resource Management , Vol. 24 No. 14 , pp. 2692 - 2712 .

Aryee , S. , Walumbwa , F.O. , Zhou , Q. and Hartnell , C.A. ( 2012 ), “ Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: test of mediation and moderation processes ”, Human Performance , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 25 .

Axtell , C.M. , Holman , D.J. , Unsworth , K.L. , Wall , T.D. , Waterson , P.E. and Harrington , E. ( 2000 ), “ Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 73 No. 3 , pp. 265 - 285 .

Ayuso , S. , Ángel Rodríguez , M. , García‐Castro , R. and Ángel Ariño , M. ( 2011 ), “ Does stakeholder engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation? ”, Industrial Management and Data Systems , Vol. 111 No. 9 , pp. 1399 - 1417 .

Bäcklander , G. ( 2019 ), “ Doing complexity leadership theory: how agile coaches at Spotify practise enabling leadership ”, Creativity and Innovation Management , Vol. 28 No. 1 , pp. 42 - 60 .

Bakker , A.B. and Demerouti , E. ( 2007 ), “ The job demands‐resources model: state of the art ”, Journal of Managerial Psychology , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 309 - 328 .

Bakker , A.B. , Schaufeli , W.B. , Leiter , M.P. and Taris , T.W. ( 2008 ), “ Work engagement: an emerging concept in occupational health psychology ”, Work and Stress , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 187 - 200 .

Barata , D.D. ( 2016 ), “ The impact of leader engagement on the creation of innovation culture ”, International Journal of Economics and Management , Vol. 1 No. 10 , pp. 135 - 149 .

Baron , R.M. and Kenny , D.A. ( 1986 ), “ The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations ”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 51 No. 6 , p. 1173 .

Bellis , P. and Verganti , R. ( 2019 ), “ Pairs in innovation: how working in pairs helps organizations to move into A new shared direction ”, International Journal of Innovation Management , Vol. 24 No. 3 .

Bellis , P. and Verganti , R. ( 2020 ), “ Pairs as pivots of innovation: how collaborative sensemaking benefits from innovating in twos ”, Innovation: Organization and Management , pp. 1 - 25 , doi: 10.1080/14479338.2020.1790374 .

Bessant , J. ( 2003 ), “ Challenges in innovation management ”, in The International Handbook on Innovation , Pergamon , pp. 761 - 774 .

Bhatnagar , J. ( 2012 ), “ Management of innovation: role of psychological empowerment, work engagement and turnover intention in the Indian context ”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management , Vol. 23 No. 5 , pp. 928 - 951 .

Biesenthal , C. and Wilden , R. ( 2014 ), “ Multi-level project governance: trends and opportunities ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 32 No. 8 , pp. 1291 - 1308 .

Bogers , M. and Horst , W. ( 2014 ), “ Collaborative prototyping: cross‐fertilization of knowledge in prototype‐driven problem solving ”, Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol. 31 No. 4 , pp. 744 - 764 .

Bower , J.L. and Christensen , C.M. ( 1995 ), “ Disruptive technologies: catching the wave ”, Harvard Business Review .

Brenton , B. and Levin , D. ( 2012 ), “ The softer side of innovation: the people ”, Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol. 29 No. 3 , pp. 364 - 366 .

Brodie , R.J. , Ilic , A. , Juric , B. and Hollebeek , L. ( 2013 ), “ Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an exploratory analysis ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 66 No. 1 , pp. 105 - 114 .

Brown , T. ( 2008 ), “ Design thinking ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 86 No. 6 , pp. 84 - 92+141 .

Butt , A. , Naaranoja , M. and Savolainen , J. ( 2016 ), “ Project change stakeholder communication ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 34 No. 8 , pp. 1579 - 1595 .

Calabretta , G. , Durisin , B. and Ogliengo , M. ( 2011 ), “ Uncovering the intellectual structure of research in business ethics: a journey through the history, the classics, and the pillars of Journal of Business Ethics ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 104 No. 4 , pp. 499 - 524 .

Campbell , C. , Pitt , L.F. , Parent , M. and Berthon , P.R. ( 2011 ), “ Understanding consumer conversations around ads in a Web 2.0 world ”, Journal of Advertising , Vol. 40 No. 1 , pp. 87 - 102 .

Chen , J. , Weng , H. and Huang , C. ( 2016 ), “ A multilevel analysis of customer engagement, its antecedents, and the effects on service innovation ”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence , Vol. 29 Nos 3-4 , pp. 410 - 428 .

Chesbrough , H. and Tucci , C.L. ( 2020 ), The Interplay between Open Innovation and Lean Startup, or, Why Large Companies Are Not Large Versions of Startups .

Chesbrough , H.W. ( 2003 ), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , Harvard Business Press .

Christian , M.S. , Garza , A.S. and Slaughter , J.E. ( 2011 ), “ Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance ”, Personnel Psychology , Vol. 64 No. 1 , pp. 89 - 136 .

Chughtai , A.A. and Buckley , F. ( 2011 ), “ Work engagement: antecedents, the mediating role of learning goal orientation and job performance ”, Career Development International , Vol. 16 No. 7 , pp. 684 - 705 .

De Spiegelaere , S. , Van Gyes , G. , De Witte , H. , Niesen , W. and Van Hootegem , G. ( 2014 ), “ On the relation of job insecurity, job autonomy, innovative work behaviour and the mediating effect of work engagement ”, Creativity and Innovation Management , Vol. 23 No. 3 , pp. 318 - 330 .

De Spiegelaere , S. , Van Gyes , G. , De Witte , H. and Van Hootegem , G. ( 2015 ), “ Job design, work engagement and innovative work behavior: a multi-level study on Karasek's learning hypothesis ”, Management Revue , Vol. 26 No. 2 , pp. 123 - 137 .

De Weerd-Nederhof , P.C. , Bos , G.J. , Visscher , K. , Gomes , J.F. and Kekale , T. ( 2007 ), “ Organisational patterns in new product development: contrasting The Netherlands, Finland and Portugal ”, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 315 - 336 .

de Zulueta , P.C. ( 2015 ), “ Developing compassionate leadership in health care: an integrative review ”, Journal of Healthcare Leadership , Vol. 8 , pp. 1 - 10 , doi: 10.2147/JHL.S93724 .

Dell'Era , C. , Magistretti , S. , Cautela , C. , Verganti , R. and Zurlo , F. ( 2020 ), “ Four kinds of design thinking: From ideating to making, engaging, and criticizing ”, Creativity and Innovation Management , Vol. 29 No. 2 , pp. 324 - 344 .

Dvir , T. , Eden , D. , Avolio , B.J. and Shamir , B. ( 2002 ), “ Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 45 No. 4 , pp. 735 - 744 .

Ehin , C. ( 2013 ), “ Can people really be managed? ”, International Journal of Commerce and Management , Vol. 23 No. 3 , pp. 184 - 203 .

Eldor , L. ( 2017 ), “ The relationship between perceptions of learning climate and employee innovative behavior and proficiency ”, Personnel Review , Vol. 46 No. 8 , pp. 1454 - 1474 .

Fernandes , T. and Remelhe , P. ( 2016 ), “ How to engage customers in co-creation: customers’ motivations for collaborative innovation ”, Journal of Strategic Marketing , Vol. 24 Nos 3-4 , pp. 311 - 326 .

Fornell , C. and Larcker , D.F. ( 1981 ), “ Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error ”, Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 18 No. 1 , pp. 39 - 50 .

Fortunato , S. ( 2010 ), “ Community detection in graphs ”, Physics Reports , Vol. 486 Nos 3-5 , pp. 75 - 174 .

Fortunato , S. and Barthelemy , M. ( 2007 ), “ Resolution limit in community detection ”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , Vol. 104 No. 1 , pp. 36 - 41 .

Franke , N. and Shah , S. ( 2003 ), “ How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users ”, Research Policy , Vol. 32 No. 1 , pp. 157 - 178 .

Füller , J. ( 2006 ), Why Consumers Engage in Virtual New Product Developments Initiated by Producers , ACR North American Advances , available at: https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v33/v33_10600.pdf .

Fuchs , S. and Edwards , M.R. ( 2012 ), “ Predicting pro‐change behaviour: the role of perceived organisational justice and organisational identification ”, Human Resource Management Journal , Vol. 22 No. 1 , pp. 39 - 59 .

Garg , S. and Dhar , R. ( 2017 ), “ Employee service innovative behavior: the roles of leader-member exchange (LMX), work engagement, and job autonomy ”, International Journal of Manpower , Vol. 38 No. 2 , pp. 242 - 258 .

Ghezzi , A. , Gabelloni , D. , Martini , A. and Natalicchio , A. ( 2018 ), “ Crowdsourcing: a review and suggestions for future research ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 20 No. 2 , pp. 343 - 363 .

Gmür , M. ( 2003 ), “ Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: a methodological evaluation ”, Scientometrics , Vol. 57 No. 1 , pp. 27 - 57 .

Gomes , C. , Curral , L. and Caetano , A. ( 2015 ), “ The mediating effect of work engagement on the relationship between self-leadership and individual innovation ”, International Journal of Innovation Management , Vol. 19 No. 01 , 1550009 .

Grissemann , U.S. , Pikkemaat , B. and Weger , C. ( 2013 ), “ Antecedents of innovation activities in tourism: an empirical investigation of the Alpine hospitality industry ”, Turizam: Međunarodni Znanstveno-Stručni Časopis , Vol. 61 No. 1 , pp. 7 - 27 .

Grönroos , C. and Helle , P. ( 2012 ), “ Return on relationships: conceptual understanding and measurement of mutual gains from relational business engagements ”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing , Vol. 27 No. 5 , pp. 344 - 359 .

Hair , J.F. , Black , W.C. , Babin , B.J. , Anderson , R.E. and Tatham , R.L. ( 2010 ), Multivariate Data Analysis , Prentice hall , Upper Saddle River, NJ .

Hackman , J.R. and Oldham , G.R. ( 1976 ), “ Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory ”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , Vol. 16 No. 2 , pp. 250 - 279 .

Hakanen , J.J. , Perhoniemi , R. and Toppinen-Tanner , S. ( 2008 ), “ Positive gain spirals at work: from job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness ”, Journal of Vocational Behavior , Vol. 73 No. 1 , pp. 78 - 91 .

Hammond , M.M. , Neff , N.L. , Farr , J.L. , Schwall , A.R. and Zhao , X. ( 2011 ), “ Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: a meta-analysis ”, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts , Vol. 5 No. 1 , p. 90 .

Harter , J.K. , Schmidt , F.L. and Hayes , T.L. ( 2002 ), “ Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 87 No. 2 , p. 268 .

Heiskanen , E. and Matschoss , K. ( 2016 ), “ Consumers as innovators in the electricity sector? consumer perceptions on smart grid services ”, International Journal of Consumer Studies , Vol. 40 No. 6 , pp. 665 - 674 .

Herrera , M.E.B. ( 2015 ), “ Creating competitive advantage by institutionalizing corporate social innovation ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 68 No. 7 , pp. 1468 - 1474 .

Herrera , M.E.B. ( 2016 ), “ Innovation for impact: business innovation for inclusive growth ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 69 No. 5 , pp. 1725 - 1730 .

Hill , L.A. , Brandeau , G. , Truelove , E. and Lineback , K. ( 2014 ), Collective Genius: The Art and Practice of Leading Innovation , Harvard Business Review Press , Cambridge, MA .

Høyrup , S. ( 2010 ), Employee-driven Innovation and Workplace Learning: Basic Concepts, Approaches and Themes , Vol. 16 No. 2 , pp. 143 - 154 .

Hollebeek , L.D. and Andreassen , T.W. ( 2018 ), “ The S-D logic-informed ‘hamburger' model of service innovation and its implications for engagement and value ”, Journal of Services Marketing , Vol. 32 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 7 .

Hollebeek , L.D. , Glynn , M.S. and Brodie , R.J. ( 2014 ), “ Consumer brand engagement in social media: conceptualization, scale development and validation ”, Journal of Interactive Marketing , Vol. 28 No. 2 , pp. 149 - 165 .

Holten , A.-L. and Brenner , S.O. ( 2015 ), “ Leadership style and the process of organizational change ”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal , Vol. 36 No. 1 , pp. 2 - 16 .

Howaldt , J. , Oeij , P.R. , Dhondt , S. and Fruytier , B. ( 2016 ), “ Workplace innovation and social innovation: an introduction ”, World Review of Entrepreneurship Management and Sustainable Development , Vol. 12 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 12 .

Janssen , O. ( 2000 ), “ Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 73 No. 3 , pp. 287 - 302 .

Janssen , O. ( 2003 ), “ Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co‐workers ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 76 No. 3 , pp. 347 - 364 .

Jena , L.K. and Memon , N.Z. ( 2018 ), “ Does workplace flexibility usher innovation? A moderated mediation model on the enablers of innovative workplace behavior ”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management , Vol. 19 No. 1 , pp. 5 - 17 .

Jung , H.S. and Yoon , H.H. ( 2018 ), “ Improving frontline service employees' innovative behavior using conflict management in the hospitality industry: the mediating role of engagement ”, Tourism Management , Vol. 69 , pp. 498 - 507 .

Kahn , W.A. ( 1990 ), “ Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 33 No. 4 , pp. 692 - 724 .

Kahn , W.A. ( 1992 ), “ To be fully there: psychological presence at work ”, Human Relations , Vol. 45 No. 4 , pp. 321 - 349 .

Karanika-Murray , M. , Duncan , N. , Pontes , H.M. and Griffiths , M.D. ( 2015 ), “ Organizational identification, work engagement, and job satisfaction ”, Journal of Managerial Psychology , Vol. 30 No. 8 , pp. 1019 - 1033 .

Kash , B.A. , Spaulding , A. , Johnson , C.E. and Gamm , L. ( 2014 ), “ Success factors for strategic change initiatives: a qualitative study of healthcare administrators' perspectives ”, Journal of Healthcare Management , Vol. 59 No. 1 , pp. 65 - 81 .

Kavaliova , M. , Virjee , F. , Maehle , N. and Kleppe , I.A. ( 2016 ), “ Crowdsourcing innovation and product development: gamification as a motivational driver ”, Cogent Business and Management , Vol. 3 No. 1 , p. 1128132 .

Kelley , T. and Kelley , D. ( 2013 ), Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential within Us All , Crown Business, New York .

Klaus , S. ( 2016 ), The Fourth Industrial Revolution , World Economic Forum , p. 11 .

Koch , A.R. , Binnewies , C. and Dormann , C. ( 2015 ), “ Motivating innovation in schools: School principals' work engagement as a motivator for schools' innovation ”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 24 No. 4 , pp. 505 - 517 .

Krishnan , V. and Ulrich , K.T. ( 2001 ), “ Product development decisions: a review of the literature ”, Management Science , Vol. 47 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 21 .

Kumar , H. and Raghavendran , S. ( 2015 ), “ Gamification, the finer art: fostering creativity and employee engagement ”, Journal of Business Strategy , Vol. 36 No. 6 , pp. 3 - 12 .

Lee , S.M. and Trimi , S. ( 2018 ), “ Innovation for creating a smart future ”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 8 .

Lee , S.M. , Olson , D.L. and Trimi , S. ( 2012 ), “ Co-innovation: convergenomics, collaboration, and co-creation for organizational values ”, Management Decision , Vol. 50 No. 5 , pp. 817 - 831 .

Lee , H. , Han , J. and Suh , Y. ( 2014 ), “ Gift or threat? an examination of voice of the customer: the case of MyStarbucksIdea. com ”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications , Vol. 13 No. 3 , pp. 205 - 219 .

Li , Y. , Castaño , G. and Li , Y. ( 2018 ), “ Linking leadership styles to work engagement: the role of psychological capital among Chinese knowledge workers ”, Chinese Management Studies , Vol. 12 No. 2 , pp. 433 - 452 .

Lill , P. , Wald , A. and Munck , J.C. ( 2020 ), “ In the field of tension between creativity and efficiency: a systematic literature review of management control systems for innovation activities ”, European Journal of Innovation Management . doi: 10.1108/EJIM-11-2019-0329 .

Magistretti , S. , Dell'Era , C. and Verganti , R. ( 2020 ), “ Searching for the right application: a technology development review and research agenda ”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change , Vol. 151 , p. 119879 .

Maharaj , N. and April , K.A. ( 2013 ), “ The power of self-love in the evolution of leadership and employee engagement ”, Problems and Perspectives in Management , Vol. 11 No. 4 , pp. 120 - 132 .

Mainemelis , C. and Ronson , S. ( 2006 ), “ Ideas are born in fields of play: towards a theory of play and creativity in organizational settings ”, Research in Organizational Behavior , Vol. 27 , pp. 81 - 131 .

Maria Stock , R. , Jong , A.d. and Zacharias , N.A. ( 2017 ), “ Frontline employees' innovative service behavior as key to customer loyalty: insights into FLEs' resource gain spiral ”, Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol. 34 No. 2 , pp. 223 - 245 .

Martinez , M.G. ( 2015 ), “ Solver engagement in knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing communities: exploring the link to creativity ”, Research Policy , Vol. 44 No. 8 , pp. 1419 - 1430 .

Mathies , C. and Burford , M. ( 2011 ), “ Customer service understanding: gender differences of frontline employees ”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal , Vol. 21 No. 6 , pp. 636 - 648 .

Matzler , K. , Friedrich von den Eichen , S. , Anschober , M. and Kohler , T. ( 2018 ), “ The crusade of digital disruption ”, Journal of Business Strategy , Vol. 39 No. 6 , pp. 13 - 20 .

Mauno , S. , Kinnunen , U. and Ruokolainen , M. ( 2007 ), “ Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: a longitudinal study ”, Journal of Vocational Behavior , Vol. 70 No. 1 , pp. 149 - 171 .

May , D.R. , Gilson , R.L. and Harter , L.M. ( 2004 ), “ The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 77 No. 1 , pp. 11 - 37 .

Merrilees , B. , Miller , D. and Yakimova , R. ( 2017 ), “ The role of staff engagement in facilitating staff-led value co-creation ”, Journal of Service Management , Vol. 28 No. 2 , pp. 250 - 264 .

Michaelides , D. ( 2011 ), “ Will Gamify those processes. The art of innovation in the public sector ”, International Journal of Innovation Science , Vol. 3 No. 3 , pp. 117 - 126 .

Memon , N.Z. and Jena , L.K. ( 2017 ), “ Gender inequality, job satisfaction and job motivation: evidence from Indian female employees ”, Management and Labour Studies , Vol. 42 No. 3 , pp. 253 - 274 .

Nemet , G.F. ( 2009 ), “ Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change ”, Research Policy , Vol. 38 No. 5 , pp. 700 - 709 .

Nicolajsen , H. and Scupola , A. ( 2011 ), “ Investigating issues and challenges for customer involvement in business services innovation ”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing , Vol. 26 No. 5 , pp. 368 - 376 .

Nowak , R. ( 2019 ), “ Responding to key exogenous changes: the joint effect of network heterogeneity and culture of innovation ”, International Journal of Innovation Management , Vol. 23 No. 04 , 1950030 .

O'Connor , G.C. and McDermott , C.M. ( 2004 ), “ The human side of radical innovation ”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , Vol. 21 Nos 1-2 , pp. 11 - 30 .

Oldham , G.R. and Cummings , A. ( 1996 ), “ Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 39 No. 3 , pp. 607 - 634 .

Orth , M. and Volmer , J. ( 2017 ), “ Daily within-person effects of job autonomy and work engagement on innovative behaviour: the cross-level moderating role of creative self-efficacy ”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 26 No. 4 , pp. 601 - 612 .

Oyner , O. and Korelina , A. ( 2016 ), " The influence of customer engagement in value co-creation on customer satisfaction: searching for new forms of co-creation in the Russian hotel industry ", Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes , Vol. 8 No. 3 , pp. 327 - 345 .

Payne , A.F. , Storbacka , K. and Frow , P. ( 2008 ), “ Managing the co-creation of value ”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 36 No. 1 , pp. 83 - 96 .

Petrou , P. , Demerouti , E. and Schaufeli , W.B. ( 2018 ), “ Crafting the change: the role of employee job crafting behaviors for successful organizational change ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 44 No. 5 , pp. 1766 - 1792 .

Pham-Thai , N.T. , McMurray , A.J. , Muenjohn , N. and Muchiri , M. ( 2018 ), “ Job engagement in higher education ”, Personnel Review , Vol. 47 No. 4 , pp. 951 - 967 .

Podsakoff , P.M. , MacKenzie , S.B. , Lee , J. and Podsakoff , N.P. ( 2003 ), “ Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 88 No. 5 , p. 879 .

Prahalad , C.K. and Ramaswamy , V. ( 2004 ), “ Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation ”, Journal of Interactive Marketing , Vol. 18 No. 3 , pp. 5 - 14 .

Putkonen , A. ( 2009 ), “ Predicting the effects of time pressure on design work ”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning , Vol. 6 No. 5 , pp. 477 - 492 .

Ramaswamy , V. ( 2008 ), “ Co‐creating value through customers' experiences: the Nike case ”, Strategy and Leadership , Vol. 36 No. 5 , pp. 9 - 14 .

Ramaswamy , V. ( 2009 ), “ Leading the transformation to co‐creation of value ”, Strategy and Leadership , Vol. 37 No. 2 , pp. 32 - 37 .

Ramaswamy , V. ( 2010 ), “ Competing through co‐creation: innovation at two companies ”, Strategy and Leadership , Vol. 38 No. 2 , pp. 22 - 29 .

Randall , R. , Ramaswamy , V. and Ozcan , K. ( 2013 ), Strategy and Co-creation Thinking , Strategy and Leadership .

Randhawa , K. , Wilden , R. and Hohberger , J. ( 2016 ), “ A bibliometric review of open innovation: setting a research agenda ”, Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol. 33 No. 6 , pp. 750 - 772 .

Rich , B.L. , Lepine , J.A. and Crawford , E.R. ( 2010 ), “ Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 53 No. 3 , pp. 617 - 635 .

Roberts , D. , Hughes , M. and Kertbo , K. ( 2014 ), “ Exploring consumers' motivations to engage in innovation through co-creation activities ”, European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 48 Nos 1/2 , pp. 147 - 169 .

Robinson , D. , Perryman , S. and Hayday , S. ( 2004 ), The Drivers of Employee Engagement , Report-Institute for Employment Studies , Brighton .

Rogers , C.R. ( 1962 ), “ The interpersonal relationship ”, Harvard Educational Review , Vol. 32 No. 4 , pp. 416 - 429 .

Roll , L.C. , Siu , O.-l. , Li , S.Y.W. and De Witte , H. ( 2015 ), “ Job insecurity: cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China ”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance , Vol. 2 No. 1 , pp. 36 - 54 .

Rooney , D. ( 2005 ), “ Knowledge, economy, technology and society: the politics of discourse ”, Telematics and Informatics , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 405 - 422 .

Rossi , C. ( 2011 ), “ Online consumer communities, collaborative learning and innovation ”, Measuring Business Excellence , Vol. 15 No. 3 , pp. 46 - 62 .

Ruck , K. , Welch , M. and Menara , B. ( 2017 ), “ Employee voice: an antecedent to organisational engagement? ”, Public Relations Review , Vol. 43 No. 5 , pp. 904 - 914 .

Rumbles , S. and Rees , G. ( 2013 ), “ Continuous changes, organizational burnout and the implications for HRD ”, Industrial and Commercial Training , Vol. 45 No. 4 , pp. 236 - 242 .

Saks , A.M. ( 2006 ), “ Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement ”, Journal of Managerial Psychology , Vol. 21 No. 7 , pp. 600 - 619 .

Salanova , M. , Agut , S. and Peiró , J.M. ( 2005 ), “ Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 90 No. 6 , p. 1217 .

Salter , A. , Criscuolo , P. and Ter Wal , A.L. ( 2014 ), “ Coping with open innovation: responding to the challenges of external engagement in R&D ”, California Management Review , Vol. 56 No. 2 , pp. 77 - 94 .

Sawhney , M. , Verona , G. and Prandelli , E. ( 2005 ), “ Collaborating to create: the Internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation ”, Journal of Interactive Marketing , Vol. 19 No. 4 , pp. 4 - 17 .

Schaufeli , W.B. and Bakker , A.B. ( 2004 ), “ Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi‐sample study ”, Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior , Vol. 25 No. 3 , pp. 293 - 315 .

Schaufeli , W.B. , Salanova , M. , González-Romá , V. and Bakker , A.B. ( 2002 ), “ The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach ”, Journal of Happiness Studies , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 71 - 92 .

Schraub , E.M. , Michel , A. , Shemla , M. and Sonntag , K. ( 2014 ), “ The roles of leader emotion management and team conflict for team members' personal initiative: a multilevel perspective ”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 23 No. 2 , pp. 263 - 276 .

Scott , S.G. and Bruce , R.A. ( 1994 ), “ Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 37 No. 3 , pp. 580 - 607 .

Seibert , S.E. , Silver , S.R. and Randolph , W.A. ( 2004 ), “ Taking empowerment to the next level: a multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 47 No. 3 , pp. 332 - 349 .

Shalley , C.E. , Zhou , J. and Oldham , G.R. ( 2004 ), “ The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here? ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 30 No. 6 , pp. 933 - 958 .

Shane , S.A. and Ulrich , K.T. ( 2004 ), “ Technological innovation, product development, and entrepreneurship in management science ”, Management Science , Vol. 50 No. 2 , pp. 133 - 144 .

Shuck , B. and Wollard , K. ( 2010 ), “ Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of the foundations ”, Human Resource Development Review , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 89 - 110 .

Slåtten , T. and Mehmetoglu , M. ( 2011 ), “ Antecedents and effects of engaged frontline employees: a study from the hospitality industry ”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal , Vol. 21 No. 1 , pp. 88 - 107 .

Slater , S.F. , Mohr , J.J. and Sengupta , S. ( 2014 ), “ Radical product innovation capability: literature review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions ”, Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol. 31 No. 3 , pp. 552 - 566 .

Small , H. ( 1973 ), “ Co‐citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents ”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science , Vol. 24 No. 4 , pp. 265 - 269 .

Smedley , J. ( 2017 ), “ Information innovation: it’s all about people ”, Information and Learning Sciences , Vol. 118 Nos 11-12 , pp. 669 - 671 .

Smith , C.E. ( 1994 ), “ The Merlin factor: leadership and strategic intent ”, Business Strategy Review , Vol. 5 No. 1 , pp. 67 - 84 .

Snyder , K. , Ingelsson , P. and Bäckström , I. ( 2018 ), “ Using design thinking to support value-based leadership for sustainable quality development ”, Business Process Management Journal , Vol. 24 No. 6 , pp. 1289 - 1301 .

Sobel , M.E. ( 1982 ), “ Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models ”, Sociological Methodology , Vol. 13 , pp. 290 - 312 .

Stachova , K. , Stacho , Z. and Vicen , V. ( 2017 ), “ Efficient involvement of human resources in innovations through effective communication ”, Business: Theory and Practice , Vol. 18 , p. 33 .

Suominen , A. , Seppänen , M. and Dedehayir , O. ( 2019 ), “ A bibliometric review on innovation systems and ecosystems: a research agenda ”, European Journal of Innovation Management , Vol. 22 No. 2 , pp. 335 - 360 .

Te Kulve , H. and Rip , A. ( 2011 ), “ Constructing productive engagement: pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies ”, Science and Engineering Ethics , Vol. 17 No. 4 , pp. 699 - 714 .

Teerikangas , S. and Välikangas , L. ( 2013 ), “ Engaged employees! an actor perspective on innovation ”, in Handbook of Organizational and Managerial Innovation , Edward Elgar Publishing .

Tirabeni , L. and Soderquist , K.E. ( 2019 ), “ Connecting the dots: framing employee-driven innovation in open innovation contexts ”, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management , Vol. 16 No. 04 , 1950031 .

Torvinen , H. and Ulkuniemi , P. ( 2016 ), “ End-user engagement within innovative public procurement practices: a case study on public–private partnership procurement ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 58 , pp. 58 - 68 .

Totterdill , P. and Exton , R. ( 2014 ), “ Defining workplace innovation: the fifth element ”, Strategic Direction , Vol. 30 No. 9 , pp. 12 - 16 .

Trabucchi , D. and Buganza , T. ( 2019 ), “ Data-driven innovation: switching the perspective on Big Data ”, European Journal of Innovation Management , Vol. 22 No. 1 , pp. 23 - 40 .

Tranfield , D. , Denyer , D. and Smart , P. ( 2003 ), “ Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review ”, British Journal of Management , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 207 - 222 .

Tuzovic , S. , Wirtz , J. and Heracleous , L. ( 2018 ), “ How do innovators stay innovative? A longitudinal case analysis ”, Journal of Services Marketing , Vol. 32 No. 1 , pp. 34 - 45 .

Van Eck , N.J. and Waltman , L. ( 2014 ), “ Visualizing bibliometric networks ”, in Measuring Scholarly Impact , Springer , pp. 285 - 320 .

Van Looy , B. , Ranga , M. , Callaert , J. , Debackere , K. and Zimmermann , E. ( 2004 ), “ Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? ”, Research Policy , Vol. 33 No. 3 , pp. 425 - 441 .

Vargo , S.L. and Lusch , R.F. ( 2014 ), “ Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing ”, in The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing , Routledge , pp. 21 - 46 .

Verganti , R. ( 2017 ), Overcrowded: Designing Meaningful Products in a World Awash with Ideas , MIT Press , Cambridge .

Verganti , R. and Norman , D. ( 2019 ), “ Why criticism is good for creativity ”, Harvard Business Review , available at: https://hbr.org/2019/07/whycriticism-is-good-for-creativity .

Verona , G. and Prandelli , E. ( 2002 ), “ A dynamic model of customer loyalty to sustain competitive advantage on the web ”, European Management Journal , Vol. 20 No. 3 , pp. 299 - 309 .

Von Hippel , E. ( 1986 ), “ Lead users: a source of novel product concepts ”, Management Science , Vol. 32 No. 7 , pp. 791 - 805 .

Von Hippel , E. ( 2005 ), “ Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user innovation ”, Journal für Betriebswirtschaft , Vol. 55 No. 1 , pp. 63 - 78 .

Waltman , L. and van Eck , N.J. ( 2013 ), “ A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators ”, Journal of Informetrics , Vol. 7 No. 4 , pp. 833 - 849 .

Waltman , L. , Van Eck , N.J. and Noyons , E.C. ( 2010 ), “ A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks ”, Journal of Informetrics , Vol. 4 No. 4 , pp. 629 - 635 .

Watson , R. , Wilson , H.N. , Smart , P. and Macdonald , E.K. ( 2018 ), “ Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation ”, Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol. 35 No. 2 , pp. 254 - 279 .

Welch , M. ( 2011 ), “ The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication implications ”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal .

West , M.A. and Farr , J.L. ( 1990 ), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psycological and Organizational Strategies , Wiley, Chichester .

White , H.D. and Griffith , B.C. ( 1981 ), “ Author cocitation: a literature measure of intellectual structure ”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science , Vol. 32 No. 3 , pp. 163 - 171 .

Widén , K. , Olander , S. and Atkin , B. ( 2014 ), “ Links between successful innovation diffusion and stakeholder engagement ”, Journal of Management in Engineering , Vol. 30 No. 5 , 04014018 .

Zhang , T.C. , Kandampully , J. and Bilgihan , A. ( 2015 ), “ Motivations for customer engagement in online co-innovation communities (OCCs) ”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology , Vol. 6 No. 3 , p. 311 .

Zhexembayeva , N. ( 2020 ), “ Stop calling it ‘innovation' ”, Harvard Business Review , available at: https://hbr.org/2020/02/stop-calling-it-innovation .

Further reading

Christensen , C.M. ( 1997 ), The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail , Harvard Business Review Press , Cambridge, MA .

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Federico Testa, who provided a valuable contribution in early stages of this research.

Corresponding author

About the authors.

Daniel Trabucchi (corresponding author) is an assistant professor at the School of Management of Politecnico di Milano, where he serves as a researcher of Leadin' Lab, the Laboratory for Leadership, Design and Innovation. His research interests are focused on innovation management. In particular, he has been working on digital two-sided platforms and their peculiarities (focusing on how they can create and capture value and the related data-driven business models); moreover, he focuses on innovation strategy based on the interplay between technology and meaning. His research has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Internet Research , Research-Technology Management , Creativity and Innovation Management , Technology Analysis and Strategic Management and European Journal of Innovation Management ; he is also a reviewer of many of these journals.

Paola Bellis is a PhD student at the Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering at Politecnico di Milano and serves as general coordinator of IDeaLs, a global research platform which involves international companies pioneering new ways to engage people to make innovation happen. Her research interests are focused in the interplay between innovation management and leadership. In particular, she has been working on the role of team of dyads for the development of innovation in established companies; moreover, she focuses on engagement strategies for innovation development.

Diletta Di Marco (School of Management of Politecnico di Milano Diletta Di Marco) is a Ph.D. student at the Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering at Politecnico di Milano. Here, she is part of research team of the H2020 TRIGGER, which has the ultimate objective to provide EU institutions with knowledge and tools to enhance their actorness, effectiveness and influence in global governance and to develop new ways to harness the potential of public engagement and participatory foresight in complex governance decisions. Her professional background includes working on creating innovative solutions in urban policy, where she focused on themes such as active citizenship and co-design processes. Her strong interest in innovation in the public sector informed her studies at the Hertie School of Governance, where she pursued Master of Public Policy. The purpose of the research study is to investigate new approaches for engaging large communities into decision-making processes connected to innovation.

Tommaso Buganza is an associate professor of leadership and innovation at the School of Management of Politecnico di Milano, where he also is a co-founder of Leadin' Lab, the Laboratory for Leadership, Design and Innovation. He is a member of the scientific committee of the International Product Development Management Conference EIASM-IPDMC. His research activity explores the intersection between technological innovation and leadership and has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Journal of Product Innovation Management , International Journal of Project Management , International Journal of Innovation Management, European Journal of Innovation Management and Creativity and Innovation Management and in a number of books; he is also a reviewer for many of these journals.

Roberto Verganti is a professor of leadership and innovation at the Stockholm School of Economics. He is also the founder of Leadin’ Lab, the Laboratory for Leadership, Design and Innovation of Politecnico di Milano. He has been a visiting scholar at Harvard Business School twice, at Copenhagen Business School and at California Polytechnic University. Roberto serves in the advisory board of the European Innovation Council of the European Commission. Roberto is the author of “ Overcrowded ,” published by MIT Press in 2017 and of “ Design-Driven Innovation ,” published by Harvard Business Press in 2009, which has been nominated by the Academy of Management for the George R. Terry Book Award as one of the best six management books published in 2008 and 2009. Roberto has issued more than 150 articles. He is in the Hall of Fame of the Journal of Product Innovation Management and has been featured on The Wall Street Journal , The New York Times, Financial Times, Forbes , BusinessWeek . Roberto is a regular contributor to the Harvard Business Review .

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 73, 2022, review article, attitudes, habits, and behavior change.

• Bas Verplanken 1 , and Sheina Orbell 2
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom; email: [email protected] 2 Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 73:327-352 (Volume publication date January 2022) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-011744
• First published as a Review in Advance on September 29, 2021
• Copyright © 2022 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

Efforts to guide peoples’ behavior toward environmental sustainability, good health, or new products have emphasized informational and attitude change strategies. There is evidence that changing attitudes leads to changes in behavior, yet this approach takes insufficient account of the nature and operation of habits, which form boundary conditions for attitude-directed interventions. Integration of research on attitudes and habits might enable investigators to identify when and how behavior change strategies will be most effective. How might attitudinally driven behavior change be consolidated into lasting habits? How do habits protect the individual against the vicissitudes of attitudes and temptations and promote goal achievement? How might attitudinal approaches aiming to change habits be improved by capitalizing on habit discontinuities and strategic planning? When and how might changing or creating habit architecture shape habits directly? A systematic approach to these questions might help move behavior change efforts from attitude change strategies to habit change strategies.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Aarts H , Dijksterhuis A. 2000 . Habits as knowledge structures: automaticity in goal-directed behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78 : 53– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Aarts H , Verplanken B , van Knippenberg A. 1998 . Predicting behavior from actions in the past: repeated decision making or a matter of habit?. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28 : 1355– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Adriaanse MA , de Ridder DTD , Evers C. 2011a . Emotional eating: eating when emotional or emotional about eating?. Psychol. Health 26 : 23– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Adriaanse MA , Gollwitzer PM , De Ridder DTD , de Wit JBF , Kroese FM. 2011b . Breaking habits with implementation intentions: a test of underlying processes. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37 : 502– 13 [Google Scholar]
• Adriaanse MA , Kroese FM , Weijers J , Gollwitzer PM , Oetingen G. 2018 . Explaining unexplainable food choices. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 48 : O15– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Adriaanse MA , Vinkers CDW , De Ridder DTD , Hox JJ , De Wit JBF. 2011c . Do implementation intentions help to eat a healthy diet? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Appetite 56 : 183– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Ajzen I. 2011 . Is attitude research incompatible with the compatibility principle?. Most Underappreciated RM Arkin 151– 54 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Albarracin D , Shavitt S. 2018 . Attitudes and attitude change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 69 : 299– 327 [Google Scholar]
• Allom V , Mullan BA , Monds L , Orbell S , Hamilton K et al. 2018 . Reflective and impulsive processes underlying saving behavior and the additional roles of self-control and habit. J. Neurosci. Psychol. Econ. 11 : 135– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Amaya KA , Smith KS. 2018 . Neurobiology of habit formation. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 20 : 145– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Anderson IA , Wood W 2021 . Habits and the electronic herd: the psychology behind social media's successes and failures. Consum. Psychol. Rev. 4 : 83– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Anger S , Kvasnicka M , Siedler T. 2011 . One last puff? Public smoking bans and smoking behavior. J. Health Econ. 30 : 591– 601 [Google Scholar]
• Appelhans BM , French SA , Olinger T , Bogucki M , Janssen I et al. 2018 . Leveraging delay discounting for health: Can time delays influence food choice?. Appetite 126 : 16– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Armitage CJ. 2016 . Evidence that implementation intentions can overcome the effects of smoking habits. Health Psychol 35 : 935– 43 [Google Scholar]
• Barnett I , van Sluijs EMF , Ogilvie D. 2012 . Physical activity and transitioning to retirement: a systematic review. Am. Prev. Med. 43 : 329– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Bate KS , Malouff JM , Thorteinsson ET , Bhullar N 2011 . The efficacy of habit reversal therapy for tics, habit disorders and stuttering: a meta-analytic review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 31 : 865– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Batschelet HM , Stein M , Tschuemperlin RM , Soravia LM , Moggi F. 2020 . Alcohol-specific computerized interventions to alter cognitive biases: a systematic review of effects on experimental tasks, drinking behavior, and neuronal activation. Front. Psychiatry 10 : 871 [Google Scholar]
• Blanton H , Burrows CN , Jaccard J. 2016 . To accurately estimate implicit influences on health behaviour, accurately estimate explicit influences. Health Psychol 35 : 856– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Busch-Geertsema A , Lanzendorf M. 2017 . From university to work life—jumping behind the wheel? Explaining mode change of students making the transition to professional life. Transp. Res. A 106 : 181– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Cavanagh K , Vartanian LR , Herman CP , Polivy J. 2014 . The effect of portion size on food intake is robust to brief education and mindfulness exercises. J. Health Psychol. 19 : 730– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Ceceli AO , Natsheh JY , Cruz D , Tricomi E 2020 . The neurobehavioral mechanisms of motivational control in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Cortex 127 : 191– 207 [Google Scholar]
• Clark B , Chatterjee K , Melia S 2016 . Changes to commuter mode: the role of life events, spatial context and environmental attitude. Transp. Res. A 89 : 89– 105 [Google Scholar]
• Courtois C , Montrieux H , De Grove F , Raes A , De Marez L , Schellens T. 2014 . Student acceptance of tablet devices in secondary education: a three-wave longitudinal cross-lagged case study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 35 : 278– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Croft A , Atkinson C , Sandstrom G , Orbell S , Aknin L 2021 . Loosening the GRIP (gender roles inhibiting prosociality) to promote gender equality. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 25 : 66– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Dalege J , Borsboom D , van Harreveld F , van der Maas HLJ. 2019 . A network perspective on attitude strength: testing the connectivity hypothesis. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 10 : 746– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Daniel C. 2016 . Economic constraints on taste formation and the true cost of healthy eating. Soc. Sci. Med. 148 : 34– 41 [Google Scholar]
• De Houwer J , Tanaka A , Moors A , Tibboel H. 2018 . Kicking the habit: why evidence for habits in humans might be overestimated. Motiv. Sci. 4 : 50– 59 [Google Scholar]
• de Wit S , Corlett PR , Aitken MR , Dickinson A , Fletcher PC. 2009 . Differential engagement of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex by goal-directed and habitual behavior toward food pictures in humans. J. Neurosci. 29 : 11330– 38 [Google Scholar]
• de Wit S , Kindt M , Knot SL , Verhoeven AAC , Robbins TW et al. 2018 . Shifting the balance between goals and habits: five failures in experimental habit induction. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147 : 1043– 65 [Google Scholar]
• de Wit S , Watson P , Harsay HA , Cohen MX , van de Vijver I , Ridderinkhof KR. 2012 . Corticostriatal connectivity underlies individual differences in the balance between habitual and goal-directed action control. J. Neurosci. 32 : 12066– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Deci EL , Ryan RM. 1985 . Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior New York: Plenum [Google Scholar]
• Dickinson A , Balleine B. 1995 . Motivational control of instrumental action. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 4 : 162– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Eagly AH , Chaiken S. 1993 . The Psychology of Attitudes Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich [Google Scholar]
• Ejlerskov KT , Sharp SJ , Stead M , Adamson AJ , White M , Adams J. 2018 . Supermarket policies on less-healthy food at checkouts: natural experimental evaluation using interrupted time series analyses of purchases. PLOS Med 15 : e1002712 [Google Scholar]
• Fleig L , Ashe MC , Voss C , Therrien S , Sims-Gould J et al. 2016 . Environmental and psychosocial correlates of objectively measured physical activity among older adults. Health Psychol 35 : 1364– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Fournier M , d'Arripe-Longueville F , Radel R. 2017 . Effects of psychosocial stress on the goal-directed and habit memory systems during learning and later extinction. Psychoneuroendocrinology 77 : 275– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Galla BM , Duckworth AL. 2015 . More than resisting temptation: Beneficial habits mediate the relationship between self-control and positive life outcomes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109 : 508– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Gardner B , Lally P. 2013 . Does intrinsic motivation strengthen physical activity habit? Modeling relationships between self-determination, past behaviour, and habit strength. J. Behav. Med. 36 : 488– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Gardner B , Lally P , Rebar AL. 2020 . Does habit weaken the relationship between intention and behaviour? Revisiting the habit-intention interaction hypothesis. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 14 : e12553 [Google Scholar]
• Giles EL , Robalino S , McColl E , Sniehotta FF , Adams J. 2014 . The effectiveness of financial incentives for health behaviour change: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 9 : e90347 [Google Scholar]
• Gillan CM , Robbins TW , Sahakian BJ , van den Heuvel OA , van Wingen G. 2016 . The role of habit in compulsivity. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 26 : 828– 40 [Google Scholar]
• Glasman LR , Albarracín D. 2006 . Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychol. Bull. 132 : 778– 822 [Google Scholar]
• Gollwitzer PM. 1993 . Goal achievement: the role of intentions. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 4 : 141– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Greenwald AG , Lai CK. 2020 . Implicit social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 71 : 419– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Greenwald AG , Poehlman TA , Uhlmann EL , Banaji MR 2009 . Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97 : 17– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Haggar P , Whitmarsh L , Skippon SM. 2019 . Habit discontinuity and student travel mode choice. Transp. Res. F 64 : 1– 13 [Google Scholar]
• Hagger MS , Cameron LD , Hamilton K , Hankonen N , Lintunen T 2020 . The Handbook of Behavior Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Hagger MS , Luszczynska A. 2014 . Implementation intention and action planning interventions in health contexts: state of the research and proposals for the way forward. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 6 : 1– 47 [Google Scholar]
• Hardwick RM , Forrence AD , Krakauer JW , Haith AM. 2019 . Time-dependent competition between goal-directed and habitual response preparation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3 : 1252– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Heidenreich S , Kraemer T. 2016 . Innovations—doomed to fail? Investigating strategies to overcome passive innovation resistance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 33 : 277– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Herman CP , Polivy J , Pliner P , Vartanian LR. 2015 . Mechanisms underlying the portion-size effect. Physiol. Behav. 144 : 129– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Hofmann W , Baumeister RF , Föster G , Vohs KD. 2012 . Everyday temptations: an experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102 : 1318– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Hogarth L. 2018 . A critical review of habit theory of drug dependence. See Verplanken 2018 325– 41
• Holland RW , Aarts H , Langendam D 2006 . Breaking and creating habits on the work floor: a field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. J. Exp. Psychol. 42 : 776– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Hollands GJ , Shemilt I , Marteau TM , Jebb SA , Lewis HB et al. 2015 . Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 9 : CD011045 [Google Scholar]
• Hommel B. 2019 . Binary theorizing does not account for action control. Front. Psychol. 10 : 2542 [Google Scholar]
• Hornsey MJ , Harris EA , Bain PG , Fielding KS. 2016 . Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6 : 622– 26 [Google Scholar]
• Horstmann A , Dietrich A , Mathar D , Pössel M , Villringer A , Neumann J. 2015 . Slave to habit? Obesity is associated with decreased behavioural sensitivity to reward devaluation. Appetite 87 : 175– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Houten RV , Nau PA , Merrigan M. 1981 . Reducing elevator energy use: a comparison of posted feedback and reduced elevator convenience. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 14 : 377– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Howe LC , Krosnick JA. 2017 . Attitude strength. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68 : 327– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Itzchakov G , Uziel L , Wood W. 2018 . When attitudes and habits don't correspond: Self-control depletion increases persuasion but not behavior. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 75 : 1– 10 [Google Scholar]
• James W. 1887 . The laws of habit. Pop. Sci. Mon. 31 : 433– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Janke J , Handy S. 2019 . How life course events trigger changes in bicycling attitudes and behavior: insights into causality. Travel Behav. Soc. 16 : 31– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Judah G , Gardner B , Aunger R 2013 . Forming a flossing habit: an exploratory study of the psychological determinants of habit formation. Brit. J. Health Psychol. 18 : 338– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Kakoschke N , Kemps E , Tiggemann M. 2017 . Approach bias modification training and consumption: a review of the literature. Addict. Behav. 64 : 21– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Kaushal N , Rhodes RE. 2015 . Exercise habit formation in new gym members: a longitudinal study. J. Behav. Med. 38 : 652– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Keller J , Kwasnicka D , Klaiber P , Sichert L , Lally P , Fleig L. 2021 . Habit formation following routine-based versus time-based cue planning: a randomized controlled trial. Brit. J. Health Psychol 26 : 807 – 24 [Google Scholar]
• Kersbergen I , Oldham M , Jones A , Field M , Angus C , Robinson E 2018 . Reducing the standard serving size of alcoholic beverages prompts reductions in alcohol consumption. Addiction 113 : 1598– 608 [Google Scholar]
• Kok G , Gottlieb NH , Peters G-JY , Dolan Mullen P , Parcel GS et al. 2015 . A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychol. Rev. 10 : 297– 312 [Google Scholar]
• Kruglanski AW , Fishback A , Wooley K , Bélanger JJ , Chernikova M et al. 2018 . A structural model of intrinsic motivation: on the psychology of means-end fusion. Psychol. Rev. 125 : 165– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Kruglanski AW , Szumowska E. 2020 . Habitual behavior is goal-driven. Psychol. Sci. 15 : 1256– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Kurdi B , Seitchik AR , Axt JR , Carroll TJ , Karapetyan A et al. 2018 . Relationship between the Implicit Association Test and intergroup behavior: a meta-analysis. Am. Psychol. 74 : 569– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Kurz T , Gardner B , Verplanken B , Abraham C. 2015 . Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice? Explaining and changing repetitive climate-relevant actions. WIREs Clim. Change 6 : 113– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Labrecque JS , Wood W , Neal DT , Harrington N. 2017 . Habit slips: when consumers unintentionally resist new products. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45 : 119– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Lally P , Gardner B. 2013 . Promoting habit formation. Health Psychol. Rev. 7 : S137– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Lally P , van Jaarsveld CHM , Potts HWW , Wardle J. 2010 . How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40 : 998– 1009 [Google Scholar]
• Lattarulo P , Masucci V , Pazienza MG. 2019 . Resistance to change: car use and routines. Transp. Policy 74 : 63– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Le HTK , Buehler R , Hankey S. 2019 . Have walking and bicycling increased in the US? A 13-year longitudinal analysis of traffic counts from 13 metropolitan areas. Transp. Res. D 69 : 329– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Lee K , Kwan MP 2018 . Physical activity classification in free-living conditions using smartphone accelerometer data and exploration of predicted results. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 67 : 124– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Lewin K. 1947 . Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Hum. Relat. 1 : 5– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Lin P-Y , Wood W , Monterosso J 2016 . Healthy habits protect against temptations. Appetite 103 : 432– 40 [Google Scholar]
• Luque D , Molinero S , Watson P , López FJ , Le Pelley ME 2020 . Measuring habit formation through goal-directed response switching. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149 : 1449– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Maki A , Burns RJ , Ha L , Rothman AJ 2016 . Paying people to protect the environment: a meta-analysis of financial incentive interventions to promote proenvironmental behaviors. J. Environ. Psychol. 47 : 242– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Mancuso C , Miltenberger RG. 2016 . Using habit reversal to decrease filled pauses in public speaking. Appl. Behav. Anal. 49 : 188– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Mantzari E , Vogt F , Shemilt I , Wei J , Higgins JPT , Marteau TM 2015 . Personal financial incentives for changing habitual health-related behaviors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Med. 75 : 75– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Marien H , Custers R , Aarts H 2019 . Studying human habits in societal context: examining support for a basic stimulus-response mechanism. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28 : 614– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Mazar A , Wood W 2021 . Illusory feelings, elusive habits: explanations of behavior overlook habits. Psychol. Sci In press [Google Scholar]
• McCloskey K , Johnson BT. 2019 . Habits, quick and easy: Perceived complexity moderates the associations of contextual stability and rewards with behavioral automaticity. Front. Psychol. 10 : 1556 [Google Scholar]
• Milne S , Orbell S , Sheeran P 2002 . Combining motivational and volitional interventions to promote exercise participation: protection motivation theory and implementation intentions. Brit. J. Health Psychol. 7 : 163– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Moscovici S. 1963 . Attitudes and opinions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 14 : 231– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Murray KB , Häubl G. 2007 . Explaining cognitive lock-in: the role of skill-based habits of use in consumer choice. J. Consum. Res. 34 : 77– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Neal DT , Wood W , Drolet A 2013 . How do people adhere to goals when willpower is low? The profits (and pitfalls) of strong habits. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104 : 959– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Neal DT , Wood W , Labrecque JS , Lally P. 2012 . How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of habits in daily life. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 : 492– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Neal DT , Wood W , Wu M , Kurlander D. 2011 . The pull of the past: When do habits persist despite conflict with motives?. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37 : 1428– 37 [Google Scholar]
• Nicosia N , Datar A. 2018 . Neighborhood environments and physical activity: a longitudinal study of adolescents in a natural experiment. Am. J. Prev. Med. 54 : 671– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Orbell S , Lidierth P , Henderson CJ , Geeraert N , Uller C et al. 2009 . Social-cognitive beliefs, alcohol, and tobacco use: a prospective community study of change following a ban on smoking in public places. Health Psychol 28 : 753– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Orbell S , Phillips LA. 2019 . Automatic processes and self-regulation of illness. Health Psychol. Rev. 13 : 378– 405 [Google Scholar]
• Orbell S , Verplanken B. 2010 . The automatic component of habit in health behavior: habit as cue-contingent automaticity. Health Psychol 29 : 374– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Orbell S , Verplanken B. 2018 . Progress and prospects in habit research. See Verplanken 2018 397– 409
• Orbell S , Verplanken B 2020 . Changing behavior using habit theory. The Handbook of Behavior Change MS Hagger, LD Cameron, K Hamilton, N Hankonen, T Lintunen 178– 92 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Oswald FL , Mitchell G , Blanton H , Jaccard J , Tetlock PE 2013 . Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: a meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105 : 171– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Ouellette JA , Wood W. 1998 . Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychol. Bull. 124 : 54– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Parkes SD , Jopson A , Marsden G 2016 . Understanding travel behaviour change during mega-events: lessons from the London 2012 Games. Transp. Res. A 92 : 104– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Privitera GJ , Zuraikat FM. 2014 . Proximity of foods in a competitive food environment influences consumption of a low calorie and a high calorie food. Appetite 76 : 175– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Quinn JM , Pascoe A , Wood W , Neal DT. 2010 . Can't control yourself? Monitor those bad habits. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36 : 499– 511 [Google Scholar]
• Rebar A , Gardner B , Rhodes RE , Verplanken B. 2018 . The measurement of habits. See Verplanken 2018 31– 49
• Rebar A , Rhodes RE , Gardner B. 2019 . How we are misinterpreting physical activity intention-behavior relations and what to do about it. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 16 : 71 [Google Scholar]
• Reber R , Schwarz N , Winkelman O. 2004 . Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8 : 364– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Rhodes RE , Dickau L. 2012 . Experimental evidence for the intention-behavior relationship in the physical activity domain: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol 31 : 724– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Rinck M , Wiers RW , Becker ES , Lindenmeyer J. 2018 . Relapse prevention in abstinent alcoholics by cognitive bias modification: clinical effects of combining approach bias modification and attention bias modification. J. Consult. Clin. Psych. 86 : 1005– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Sanghvi T , Haque R , Roy S , Afsana K , Seidel R et al. 2016 . Achieving behavior change at scale: Alive and Trive's infant and young child feeding programme in Bangladesh. Matern. Child Nutr. 12 : 141– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Schneider W , Shiffrin RM. 1977 . Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychol. Rev. 84 : 1– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Sheeran P , Godin G , Conner M , Germain M. 2017 . Paradoxical effects of experience: Past behavior both strengthens and weakens the intention-behavior relationship. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2 : 309– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Sheeran P , Maki A , Montanaro E , Avishai-Yitshak A , Bryan A et al. 2016 . The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol 35 : 1178– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Sheeran P , Orbell S , Trafimow D 1999 . Does the temporal stability of behavioral intentions moderate intention-behavior and past behavior-future behavior relations?. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25 : 721– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Slovinec D'Angelo ME , Pelletier LG , Reid RD , Huta V 2014 . The roles of self-efficacy and motivation in the prediction of short- and long-term adherence to exercise among patients with coronary heart disease. Health Psychol 33 : 1344– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Stawarz K , Cox AL , Blandford A. 2015 . Beyond self-tracking and reminders: designing smartphone apps that support habit formation. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems 2653– 62 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
• Thaler RH , Sunstein CR. 2008 . Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth , and Happiness New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Thomas GO , Fisher R , Whitmarsh L , Milfont TL , Poortinga W. 2018 . The impact of parenthood on environmental attitudes and behaviour: a longitudinal investigation of the legacy hypothesis. Popul. Environ. 39 : 261– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Thomas GO , Sautkina E , Poortinga W , Wolstenholme E , Whitmarsh L 2019 . The English plastic bag charge changed behavior and increased support for other charges to reduce plastic waste. Front. Psychol. 10 : 266 [Google Scholar]
• Thürmer JL , McCrea SM , Gollwitzer PM. 2013 . Regulating self-defensiveness: If-then plans prevent claiming and creating performance handicaps. Motiv. Emot. 37 : 712– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Trafimow D. 2018 . The automaticity of habitual behaviours: inconvenient questions. See Verplanken 2018 377– 95
• Triandis HC. 1977 . Interpersonal Behavior Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole [Google Scholar]
• Turton R , Bruidegom K , Cardi V , Hirsch CR , Treasure J. 2016 . Novel methods to help develop healthier eating habits for eating and weight disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 61 : 132– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Udall AM , de Groot JIM , De Jong SB , Shankar A. 2021 . How I see me—a meta-analysis investigating the association between identities and pro-environmental behaviour. Front. Psychol. 12 : 582421 [Google Scholar]
• Venema TAG , Kroese FM , Verplanken B , de Ridder DTD 2020 . The (bitter) sweet taste of nudge effectiveness: the role of habits in a portion size nudge, a proof of concept study. Appetite 151 : 104699 [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B. 2006 . Beyond frequency: habit as mental construct. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 45 : 639– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B 2018 . The Psychology of Habit: Theory, Mechanisms, Change, and Contexts Cham, Switz: Springer [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B , Aarts H 1999 . Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of automaticity?. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 10 : 101– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B , Aarts H , van Knippenberg A. 1997 . Habit, information acquisition, and the process of making travel mode choices. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 27 : 539– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B , Aarts H , van Knippenberg A , Moonen A. 1998 . Habit versus planned behaviour: a field experiment. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 37 : 111– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B , Friborg O , Wang CE , Trafimow D , Woolf K 2007 . Mental habits: metacognitive reflection on negative self-thinking. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92 : 526– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B , Marks E , Dobromir AI. 2020 . On the nature of eco-anxiety: How constructive or unconstructive is habitual worry about global warming?. J. Environ. Psychol. 72 : 101528 [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B , Orbell S. 2003 . Reflections on past behavior: a self-report index of habit strength. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33 : 1313– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B , Roy D. 2016 . Empowering interventions to promote sustainable lifestyles: testing the habit discontinuity hypothesis in a field experiment. J. Environ. Psychol. 45 : 127– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B , Sui J. 2019 . Habit and identity: behavioral, cognitive, affective, and motivational facets of an integrated self. Front. Psychol. 10 : 1504 [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B , Walker I , Davis A , Jurasek M 2008 . Context change and travel mode choice: combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. J. Environ. Psychol. 28 : 121– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Verplanken B , Wood W. 2006 . Interventions to break and create consumer habits. J. Public Policy Mark. 25 : 90– 103 [Google Scholar]
• Wakefield MA , Loken B , Hornik RC 2010 . Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. Lancet 376 : 1261– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Walker I , Thomas GO , Verplanken B 2015 . Old habits die hard: travel habit formation and decay during an office relocation. Environ. Behav. 47 : 1089– 106 [Google Scholar]
• Webb TL , Sheeran P. 2006 . Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol. Bull. 132 : 249– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Wolf LJ , Haddock G , Manstead ASR , Maio GR. 2020 . The importance of (shared) human values for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 59 : 618– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Wood W , Mazar A , Neal DT 2021 . Habits and goals in human behavior: separate but interacting systems. PsyArXiv, Jan. 24. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qvrby [Crossref]
• Wood W , Neal DT 2007 . A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychol. Rev. 114 : 843– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Wood W , Rünger D 2016 . The psychology of habit. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67 : 289– 314 [Google Scholar]
• Wood W , Tam L , Guerrero Witt M 2005 . Changing circumstances, disrupting habits. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88 : 918– 33 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, job burnout, executive functions, social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective, on happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it, mediation analysis, missing data analysis: making it work in the real world, grounded cognition, personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model, motivational beliefs, values, and goals.

• Letter to the Editor
• Open access
• Published: 10 May 2022

A review of attitude research that is specific, accurate, and comprehensive within its stated scope: responses to Aarons

• Jessica Fishman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2867-8166 1 , 2 ,
• Catherine Yang 1 &
• David S. Mandell 1  

Implementation Science volume  17 , Article number:  29 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

3066 Accesses

Metrics details

The Original Article was published on 14 September 2021

Dear Editors-in-Chief ( Implementation Science ):

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Dr. Aarons’ letter regarding our article Attitude theory and measurement in implementation science: a secondary review of empirical studies and opportunities for advancement [ 1 ]. Dr. Aarons shares three main concerns with our review: (1) that there was a missing attribution to him, as the creator of the EBPAS; (2) whether the EBPAS measures attitudes; and (3) if our review should have included additional studies using the EBPAS. Below, we address each.

First, Dr. Aarons states that we should have made an attribution to him when referencing the developers of the EBPAS. We did cite Aarons and colleagues in the version of the manuscript that was accepted for publication; it appears the journal mistakenly changed the reference. We hope that this can be rectified and thank Dr. Aarons for bringing it to our attention.

Secondly, we respectfully disagree with Dr. Aarons about whether the EBPAS measures attitudes. As defined in the social psychology literature from which the term emanates, an attitude towards a behavior, such as using an evidence-based practice, refers to how strongly one believes that performing that behavior would have favorable or unfavorable consequences [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. In implementation science, one’s attitudes towards a particular evidence-based practice would represent the perceived advantages and disadvantages of doing so [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. There are many published methodological accounts of how to adapt validated measurement approaches, which differ fundamentally from EBPAS items and response options.

In the 15-item version of the EBPAS [ 5 ], almost all items deviate conceptually from an attitude. As an example, several items ask respondents to report “how likely” they are to use EBP under different circumstances. In psychology, such items would be considered conceptually similar to behavioral intention, not attitudes [ 6 , 7 ]. The more recent 36-item version of the EBPAS [ 8 ] also includes items that are conceptually closer to other psychological constructs. For example, the following item is conceptually related to self-efficacy: “I don’t know how to fit evidence-based practice into my administrative work.” We do not meant to diminish the importance of measuring constructs other than attitudes, but it is useful to distinguish between distinct psychological constructs, which have different roles in causal models predicting and changing behavior.

We also disagree about the importance of measuring attitudes towards specific behaviors rather than general categories of behaviors. EBPAS items refer to general categories of behavior, such as trying “new practices,” “evidence-based practices,” or “evidence-based treatment” [ 5 , 8 ]. Yet, over several decades, a large attitude literature in psychology has empirically demonstrated the advantages of measuring attitudes towards a specific behavior, rather than general categories of behavior [ 2 , 3 , 4 ].

Consistent with the results from psychology, the implementation science literature has started to document how practitioners’ attitudes can vary greatly among evidence-based practices [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. For example, we have found that therapists’ attitudes vary towards different components of cognitive-behavioral therapy [ 10 ]. Given this variability, a measure of attitudes towards “evidence-based practice” or even “cognitive behavioral therapy” would sacrifice psychometric performance, including predictive validity [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. Depending on the specific evidence-based practice, other psychological variables also can vary [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ].

A related concern is that practitioners often lack familiarity with the phrase “evidence-based practice,” as Dr. Aarons and colleagues have acknowledged [ 5 , 8 ]. The EBPAS directions state that “evidence-based practice” refers to any intervention that is supported by “empirical research,” but as Dr. Aarons and colleagues acknowledge, practitioners may still be confused, due to a lack of knowledge [ 5 , 8 ]. For example, Aarons wrote, “Familiarity with the term ‘evidence-based practice’ among program managers was low” [ 5 ]. He added that respondents had “only a low level of familiarity with even the terminology of EBP,” including the descriptor “empirically supported treatment” [ 5 ]. Additionally, practitioners may not know which practices have been designated as “evidence-based,” “research-based,” or “empirically supported.” Depending on one’s knowledge, responses to the EBPAS may differ, which is problematic if the goal is to measure attitudes.

Finally, Dr. Aarons points out that we did not include many studies that use the EBPAS. The EBPAS was featured only briefly in our review because our review was not focused on the EBPAS. Dr. Aarons suggests that our study selection was biased. We are surprised by this concern because we explicitly stated the inclusion and exclusion criteria, which relied on a rigorous, systematic review (authored by Aarons and colleagues [ 13 ]), and we adhered to the criteria.

We agree with Dr. Aarons that future reviews could change the inclusion criteria and generate a different sample of studies. Indeed, in our review [ 1 ], we called for this additional research, and we welcome the replication with a different sample. Dr. Aarons correctly notes that there are thousands of articles that could be reviewed if different inclusion criteria were used. He suggests that the studies we reviewed are not representative of all implementation studies that are concerned with attitudes. Since we lack reviews of how these other implementation studies define or measure attitudes, whether our results are representative is an open question.

Implementation science has been described as “somewhat elusive” because it has not yet developed distinct construct definitions [ 14 ]. Our review documents conceptual ambiguity and suggests that a definition of attitudes (from psychology) could be useful for implementation research [ 1 ]. Our review also provides specific examples of how implementation scientists measure attitudes in ways that differ from each other and from validated approaches used in social psychology. As implementation science strives to develop standardized measurement approaches, some of the rigorously developed methods from social psychology could offer valuable scientific opportunities.

Availability of data and materials

The data generated or analyzed for the review are included in Fishman, J., Yang, C. & Mandell, D. Attitude theory and measurement in implementation science: a secondary review of empirical studies and opportunities for advancement. Implementation Sci 16, 87 (2021).

Fishman J, Yang C, Mandell D. Attitude theory and measurement in implementation science: a secondary review of empirical studies and opportunities for advancement. Implementation Sci. 2021;16:87.

Article   Google Scholar  

Albarracin D, Johnson B, Zanna M. Handbook of attitudes. Mahwah: Erlbaum; 2005.

Google Scholar  

Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull. 1977;84:888–918.

Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. 2015.

Aarons GA. Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Ment Health Serv Res. 2004;6(2):61–74.

Fishman J, Lushin V, Mandell D.S. Predicting implementation: comparing validated measures of intention and assessing the role of motivation when designing behavioral interventions. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1(81).

Sheeran P. Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2002;12:1–36.

Rye M, Torres EM, Friborg O, Skre I, Aarons GA. The Evidence-based Practice Attitude Scale-36 (EBPAS-36): a brief and pragmatic measure of attitudes to evidence-based practice validated in US and Norwegian samples. Implement Sci. 2017;4;12(1):44.

Maddox BB, Crabbe SR, Fishman JM, Beidas RS, Brookman-Frazee L, Miller JS, et al. Factors influencing the use of cognitive–behavioral therapy with autistic adults: a survey of community mental health clinicians. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019;49(11):4421.

Wolk CB, Becker-Haimes EM, Fishman J, Affrunti NW, Mandell DS, Creed TA. Variability in clinician intentions to implement specific cognitive-behavioral therapy components. BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19(1):406.

Fishman J, Beidas R, Reisinger E, Mandell DS. The utility of measuring intentions to use best practices: a longitudinal study among teachers supporting students with autism. J School Health. 2018;88:388–95.

Becker-Haimes EM, Mandell DS, Fishman J, et al. Assessing causal pathways and targets of implementation variability for EBP use (Project ACTIVE): a study protocol. Implement Sci Commun. 2021;2:44.

Lewis CC, Boyd MR, Walsh-Bailey C, et al. A systematic review of empirical studies examining mechanisms of implementation in health. Implement Sci. 2020;15:21.

Martinez RG, Lewis CC, Weiner BJ. Instrumentation issues in implementation science. Implementation Sci. 2014;9:118.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Sources of support include NIMH P50 and Annenberg School’s Message Effects Lab. None of the funding sources played a role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or the manuscript writing.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

Jessica Fishman, Catherine Yang & David S. Mandell

Message Effects Lab at Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

Jessica Fishman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JF composed the first draft. DM and CY edited the draft. All authors approved it for submission.

Authors’ information

During post-doctoral studies, JF collaborated with Martin Fishbein, PhD, an architect of the Theory of Planned Behavior (and other causal models) who is credited with revolutionizing attitude theory and methods. She has also been mentored by Dr. Fishbein and some of his students, such as Icek Ajzen (who Aarons references). The journal requests this information because it “may aid the reader’s interpretation” of the article and the authors’ qualifications.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Fishman .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The need for approval was waived.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fishman, J., Yang, C. & Mandell, D.S. A review of attitude research that is specific, accurate, and comprehensive within its stated scope: responses to Aarons. Implementation Sci 17 , 29 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01200-z

Download citation

Received : 22 March 2022

Accepted : 23 March 2022

Published : 10 May 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01200-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Attitude: A Concept Analysis

• 43(3):144-50

• California State University, Sacramento

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Jianying Yu

• Grace Octavia Albert

• Andy Russel Mojiol

• Jesús Israel López Velázquez
• Ekgnarong Vorasiha

• Pannawat Chuvichian
• Miaohui Shao
• Pengpeng Xu
• João Carlos M. de Claudio
• Caroline F. Pereira

• Patrick Kwabla Senye-Awudi
• E Af Soc Sci Res Rev
• Daniel Erena

• Nada Missaoui
• Samir Boukthir

• Mark P. Zanna

• J. H. Dirckx
• Anita Kay Ochsner
• ADULT EDUC QUART

• Gordon G. Darkenwald
• Kevin P Dawson RMN DipN MEd RNT Nurse Teacher
• F. G. (Francis George
• Kathryn Mary. Melusky
• White-Taylor
• Mary Susan. Emerson
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Knowledge, Attitudes and Challenges of Healthcare Professionals Managing People With Eating Disorders: A Literature Review

Affiliations.

• 1 Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 Institute of Mental Health, Buangkok Green Medical Park, Singapore. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 3 Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 4 Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Clinical Research Centre (MD 11), Singapore. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 28104050
• DOI: 10.1016/j.apnu.2016.09.002

This review consolidates findings regarding knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals, together with challenges faced while caring for patients with eating disorders. A rigorous and systematic approach was taken to identify 21 articles, which include 12 quantitative, 7 qualitative, and 2 mixed-method papers. Healthcare professionals' knowledge and attitudes toward patients with eating disorders will be discussed, while identifying if factors like age, gender, work experience or profession have an impact on these two variables. Challenges faced during care provision will also be examined. Methodological limitations and knowledge gaps from these articles will be discussed, together with implications of this review.

Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Elsevier Science
• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations
• MedlinePlus Health Information
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Blockchain technology adoption for disrupting fintech functionalities: a systematic literature review for corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, and stock markets.

1. Introduction

2. research background, 2.1. literature review, 2.2. bca/fintech application domain areas, 3. methodology.

• Timeframe: 2013–2022;
• Data source: Journal articles and conference papers published in English;
• Search keywords and terms: (“corporate management” OR “supply chain” OR “banking industry” OR “stock markets”) AND (“Blockchain technology adoption”);
• Searched databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and MDPI archives.
• Expectation: Best BCA practices have been identified;
• Language: English;
• Years considered (SLR time scope): 2013–2022;
• Publication identity: DOI;
• Outcomes: Disrupting FinTech functionalities.
• Articles about theory rather than practice;
• Non-English articles;
• Articles published before 1 January 2013;
• Non-peer-reviewed articles.
• Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
• Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
• Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
• Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
• Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability.
• By adopting cryptocurrencies, the BCA/FinTech becomes more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.

4. Research Strategy for Exhausting the Literature—A Multidisciplinary Approach (Fourth Methodology Criterion)

4.1. find top-cited articles in library databases, 4.2. define an article as a prototype and find related articles, 4.3. use clarivate’s web of knowledge, 4.4. use of sage navigator, 4.5. get librarian assistance for research consultations and recorded video research consultations, 5. results and analysis.

• Expectation: Best BCA practices have been identified
• Language: English
• Years considered (SLR time scope): 2013–2022,
• Publication identity: DOI
• Outcomes: Disrupting FinTech functionalities
• Articles about theory rather than practice
• Non-English articles
• Articles published before 1 January 2013
• Non-peer-reviewed articles

5.1. Corporate Management

• [Key finding #1] Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
• [Key finding #2] Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
• [Key finding #3] Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions.
• [Key finding #4] Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability and accountability.
• [Key finding #5] By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.

5.2. Supply Chain

• [Key finding #3] Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
• [Key finding #6] Information-sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.

5.3. Banking Industry

• [Key finding #6] Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.

5.4. Stock Markets

• [Key finding #3] Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (stock markets, etc.).

5.5. Derived Quantitative Assessment

5.6. BCA Effect on Critical Financial Variables

5.6.1. First Layer of the Proposed SLR Research Sequence (RQ1: What Are the Financial Variables (BCA Functionalities) of Present BCA/FinTech Applications and Their Implications in a Particular Business Sector?)

Click here to enlarge figure

5.6.2. Second Layer of the Proposed SLR Research Sequence (RQ2: What Are the Issues and Opportunities Associated with Financial Variables Operated as BCA Functionalities in a Particular Business Sector?)

5.6.3. third layer of the proposed slr research sequence (rq3: what are the implications, theoretical contributions (hypotheses, propositions, etc.), questions, potentiality, and outlook of bca/fintech issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities in a particular business sector), 5.7. statistics, 5.7.1. content classification statistics.

5.7.2. Spatial–Temporal Evolution Statistics

6. Discussion

7. conclusions, 7.1. results and accomplishments, 7.2. findings and practical applications, 7.3. theoretical and practical implications, 7.4. contributions, 7.4.1. theoretical contributions, 7.4.2. practical contributions, 7.5. limitations and recommendations, 7.6. future research directions, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Morkunas, V.J.; Paschen, J.; Boon, E. How blockchain technologies impact your business model. Bus. Horiz. 2019 , 62 , 295–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chang, V.; Baudier, P.; Zhang, H.; Xu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Arami, M. How Blockchain can impact financial services—The overview, challenges and recommendations from expert interviewees. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020 , 158 , 120166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Varveris, D.; Styliadis, A.; Xofis, P.; Dimen, L. Tree Architecture & Blockchain Integration: An off-the-shelf Experimental Approach. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2023 , 19 , 969–977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Varveris, D.; Styliadis, A.; Xofis, P.; Dimen, L. Distributed and Collaborative Tree Architecture: A Low-cost Experimental Approach for Smart Forest Monitoring. Balt. J. Mod. Comput. 2023 , 11 , 653–685. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsitouras, A.; Papapanagos, H. Income Inequality, Economic Freedom, and Economic Growth in Greece: A Multivariate Analysis. In Advances in Empirical Economic Research, 2023, ICOAE 2022 ; Tsounis, N., Vlachvei, A., Eds.; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramli, F.A.A.; Hamzah, M.I.; Wahab, S.N.; Shekhar, R. Modeling the Brand Equity and Usage Intention of QR-Code E-Wallets. FinTech 2023 , 2 , 205–220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bühler, M.M.; Calzada, I.; Cane, I.; Jelinek, T.; Kapoor, A.; Mannan, M.; Mehta, S.; Mookerje, V.; Nübel, K.; Pentland, A.; et al. Unlocking the Power of Digital Commons: Data Cooperatives as a Pathway for Data Sovereign, Innovative and Equitable Digital Communities. Digital 2023 , 3 , 146–171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anita, D.; Bhappu, T.L.; Yeo, M.L. Platform Service Designs: A Comparative Case Analysis of Technology Features, Affordances, and Constraints for Ridesharin. Digital 2022 , 2 , 320–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Basdekidou, V.A.; Papapanagos, H. Empirical Model for Estimating Sustainable Entrepreneurship’s Growth Potential and Positive Outlook. Balt. J. Mod. Comput. 2023 , 11 , 181–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Basdekidou, V.A.; Papapanagos, H. The Use of DEA for ESG Activities and DEI Initiatives Considered as “Pillar of Sustainability” for Economic Growth Assessment in Western Balkans. Digital 2024 , 4 , 572–598. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Basdekidou, V.A.; Papapanagos, H. The mediating role of the corporate culture in the relationship between Blockchain adoption and ESG performance. SSRN J. 2024 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, N.; Zafar, M.; Okunlola, A.F.; Zoltan, Z.; Robert, M. Effects of Financial Inclusion on Economic Growth, Poverty, Sustainability, and Financial Efficiency: Evidence from the G20 Countries. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12688. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammad, A.; Chirchir, B. Challenges of Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Software Project Planning: A Systematic Literature Review. Digital 2024 , 4 , 555–571. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salcedo, E.; Gupta, M. The effects of individual-level espoused national cultural values on the willingness to use Bitcoin-like blockchain currencies. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021 , 60 , 102388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christidis, K.; Devetsikiotis, M. Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access 2016 , 4 , 2292–2303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, Z.; Xie, S.; Dai, H.; Chen, X.; Wang, H. An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress), Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 June 2017; pp. 557–564. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Renduchintala, T.; Alfauri, H.; Yang, Z.; Pietro, R.D.; Jain, R. A Survey of Blockchain Applications in the FinTech Sector. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022 , 8 , 185. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, Z.; Xie, S.; Dai, H.-N.; Chen, X.; Wang, H. Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey. Int. J. Web Grid Serv. 2018 , 14 , 352–375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pal, A.; Tiwari, C.K.; Haldar, N. Blockchain for business management: Applications, challenges and potentials. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2021 , 32 , 100414. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saheb, T.; Mamaghani, F.H. Exploring the barriers and organizational values of blockchain adoption in the banking industry. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2021 , 32 , 100417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Su, F.; Xu, C. Curbing credit corruption in China: The role of FinTech. J. Innov. Knowl. 2023 , 8 , 100292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, K.; Zheng, L.J.; Gauthier, J.; Zhou, L.; Xu, Y.; Behl, A.; Zhang, J.Z. Blockchain technology for enterprise credit information sharing in supply chain finance. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022 , 7 , 100256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 23 January 2024).
• Basdekidou, C.; Styliadis, A.D.; Argyriadis, A.; Dimen, L. A Low-cost Feasibility Training Study for DCD Children’s Perceptual-motor Therapy. Balt. J. Mod. Comput. 2023 , 11 , 726–754. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Y.; Zhao, T. How Digital Transformation Enables Corporate Sustainability: Based on the Internal and External Efficiency Improvement Perspective. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, C.-W.; Fu, M.-W. Conceptualizing Sustainable Business Models Aligning with Corporate Responsibility. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5015. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, L.; Liu, Q. The Impact of Natural Disasters on Corporate ESG Performance: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casteleiro-Pitrez, J. Generative Artificial Intelligence Image Tools among Future Designers: A Usability, User Experience, and Emotional Analysis. Digital 2024 , 4 , 316–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammad, A.; Abbas, Y. Key Challenges of Cloud Computing Resource Allocation in Small and Medium Enterprises. Digital 2024 , 4 , 372–388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liyanaarachchi, G.; Viglia, G.; Kurtaliqi, F. Addressing challenges of digital transformation with modified blockchain. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2024 , 201 , 123254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, C. An innovative MS-VAR model with integrated financial knowledge for measuring the impact of stock market bubbles on financial security. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022 , 7 , 100207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanda, O.; Pavlidis, M.; Polatidis, N. A Regulatory Readiness Assessment Framework for Blockchain Adoption in Healthcare. Digital 2022 , 2 , 65–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masoud, R.; Basahel, S. The Effects of Digital Transformation on Firm Performance: The Role of Customer Experience and IT Innovation. Digital 2023 , 3 , 109–126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deuber, D.; Gruber, J.; Humml, M.; Ronge, V.; Scheler, N. Argumentation Schemes for Blockchain Deanonymisation. FinTech 2024 , 3 , 236–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kus Khalilov, M.C.; Levi, A. A Survey on Anonymity and Privacy in Bitcoin-Like Digital Cash Systems. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2018 , 20 , 2543–2585. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• The Bitcoin Project. Bitcoin Developer Guide-Wallets. 2024. Available online: https://developer.bitcoin.org/devguide/wallets.html (accessed on 14 March 2024).
• Eyal, I.; Sirer, E.G. Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2014 ; Christin, N., Safavi-Naini, R., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 8437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kosba, A.; Miller, A.; Shi, E.; Wen, Z.; Papamanthou, C. Hawk: The Blockchain Model of Cryptography and Privacy-Preserving Smart Contracts. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Jose, CA, USA, 22–26 May 2016; pp. 839–858. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yli-Huumo, J.; Ko, D.; Choi, S.; Park, S.; Smolander, K. Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2016 , 11 , e0163477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luu, L.; Chu, D.-H.; Olickel, H.; Saxena, P.; Hobor, A. Making Smart Contracts Smarter. In CCS ‘16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security ; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 254–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, M.A.; Salah, K. IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018 , 82 , 395–411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agbo, C.C.; Mahmoud, Q.H.; Eklund, J.M. Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Systematic Review. Healthcare 2019 , 7 , 56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jena, R.K. Examining the Factors Affecting the Adoption of Blockchain Technology in the Banking Sector: An Extended UTAUT Model. Int. J. Financ. Stud. 2022 , 10 , 90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alcarria, R.; Bordel, B.; Robles, T.; Martín, D.; Manso-Callejo, M.-Á. A Blockchain-Based Authorization System for Trustworthy Resource Monitoring and Trading in Smart Communities. Sensors 2018 , 18 , 3561. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Azzi, R.; Chamoun, R.K.; Sokhn, M. The power of a blockchain-based supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019 , 135 , 582–592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dissanayake, H.; Popescu, C.; Iddagoda, A. A Bibliometric Analysis of Financial Technology: Unveiling the Research Landscape. FinTech 2023 , 2 , 527–542. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chong, T.T.L.; Wu, Y.; Su, J. The Unusual Trading Volume and Earnings Surprises in China’s Market. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020 , 13 , 244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kao, Y.-C.; Shen, K.-Y.; Lee, S.-T.; Shieh, J.C.P. Selecting the Fintech Strategy for Supply Chain Finance: A Hybrid Decision Approach for Banks. Mathematics 2022 , 10 , 2393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yogarajan, L.; Masukujjaman, M.; Ali, M.H.; Khalid, N.; Osman, L.H.; Alam, S.S. Exploring the Hype of Blockchain Adoption in Agri-Food Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review. Agriculture 2023 , 13 , 1173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, Y.; Liang, C. Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry. Financ. Innov. 2016 , 2 , 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chiu, J.; Koeppl, T.V. Blockchain-Based Settlement for Asset Trading, Bank of Canada Staff Working Paper, No. 2018-45, Bank of Canada, Ottawa. 2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gervais, A.; Karame, G.O.; Wüst, K.; Glykantzis, V.; Ritzdorf, H.; Capkun, S. On the Security and Performance of Proof of Work Blockchains. In CCS ‘16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security ; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 3–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• UN. United Nations Millennium Declaration. General Assembly. 2000. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_55_2.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2024).
• Li, Z.F.; Lu, X.; Wang, J. Corporate Social Responsibility and Goodwill Impairment: Charitable Donations of Chinese Listed Companies. 2024. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Filip, A.; Lobo, G.J.; Paugam, L. Managerial discretion to delay the recognition of goodwill impairment: The role of enforcement. J. Bus. Financ. Account. 2021 , 48 , 36–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kraus, S.; Breier, M.; Lim, W.M.; Dabić, M.; Kumar, S.; Kanbach, D.; Mukherjee, D.; Corvello, V.; Piñeiro-Chousa, J.; Liguori, E.; et al. Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022 , 16 , 2577–2595. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lim, W.M.; Kumar, S.; Ali, F. Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘What’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’. Serv. Ind. J. 2022 , 42 , 481–513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, K.S.; Kunz, R.; Kleijnen, J.; Antes, G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J. R. Soc. Med. 2003 , 96 , 118–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021 , 372 , n71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Unal, I.M.; Aysan, A.F. Fintech, Digitalization, and Blockchain in Islamic Finance: Retrospective Investigation. FinTech 2022 , 1 , 388–398. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Basdekidou, V.; Styliadou, A.A. Corporate Social Responsibility & Market Volatility: Relationship and Trading Opportunities. Int. Bus. Res. 2017 , 10 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Basdekidou, V.; Styliadou, A.A. Corporate Social Responsibility Performance & ETF Historical Market Volatility. Int. J. Econ. Financ. 2017 , 6 , 30–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hasanagas, N.D.; Styliadis, A.D.; Papadopoulou, E.I. Environmental policy and science management: Using a scientometric-specific GIS for E-learning purposes. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 2010 , 5 , 171–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hasanagas, N.D.; Styliadis, A.D.; Papadopoulou, E.I.; Sechidis, L.A. E-Learning & environmental policy: The case of a politico-administrative GIS. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 2010 , 5 , 517–524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Varma, P.; Nijjer, S.; Sood, K.; Grima, S.; Rupeika-Apoga, R. Thematic Analysis of Financial Technology (Fintech) Influence on the Banking Industry. Risks 2022 , 10 , 186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsang, K.K.; Teng, Y.; Lian, Y.; Wang, L. School management culture, emotional labor, and teacher burnout in Mainland China. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 9141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zyskind, G.; Nathan, O.; Pentland, A. Decentralizing Privacy: Using Blockchain to Protect Personal Data. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops, San Jose, CA, USA, 21–22 May 2015; pp. 180–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• United States District Court for the Central District of California. Criminal Complaint-United States of America v. Tibo Lousee, Klaus-Martin Frost, and Jonathan Kalla-Case No. 19MJ1843. 2019. Available online: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1159706/download (accessed on 14 March 2024).
• Grewal, D.; Puccinelli, N.; Monroe, K.B. Meta-analysis: Integrating accumulated knowledge. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2018 , 46 , 9–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Budde, L.; Benninghaus, C.; Hänggi, R.; Friedli, T. Managerial Practices for the Digital Transformation of Manufacturers. Digital 2022 , 2 , 463–483. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Erboz, G.; Abbas, H.; Nosratabadi, S. Investigating supply chain research trends amid COVID-19: A bibliometric analysis. Manag. Res. Rev. 2023 , 46 , 413–436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nosratabadi, S.; Zahed, R.K.; Ponkratov, V.V.; Kostyrin, E.V. Artificial Intelligence Models and Employee Lifecycle Management: A systematic Literature Review. Organizacija 2022 , 55 , 181–198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021 , 126 , 5113–5142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nelaturu, K.; Du, H.; Le, D.-P. A Review of Blockchain in Fintech: Taxonomy, Challenges, and Future Directions. Cryptography 2022 , 6 , 18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kountios, G.; Kanakaris, S.; Moulogianni, C.; Bournaris, T. Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Union: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7068. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sandra, K.-A.; Cevers, A.; Kovalenko, A.; Auzins, A. Challenges for Customs Risk Management Today: A Literature Review. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2024 , 17 , 321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bortey, L.; Edwards, D.J.; Roberts, C.; Rillie, I. A Review of Safety Risk Theories and Models and the Development of a Digital Highway Construction Safety Risk Model. Digital 2022 , 2 , 206–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, Y.; Jiang, S.; Jia, W.; Wang, Y. Blockchain as a cutting-edge technology impacting business: A systematic literature review perspective. Telecommun. Policy 2022 , 46 , 102443. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sadman, N.; Ahsan, M.M.; Rahman, A.; Siddique, Z.; Gupta, K.D. Promise of AI in DeFi, a Systematic Review. Digital 2022 , 2 , 88–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhowmik, K.; Ralescu, A. Leveraging Vector Space Similarity for Learning Cross-Lingual Word Embeddings: A Systematic Review. Digital 2021 , 1 , 145–161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nwaiwu, F. Review and Comparison of Conceptual Frameworks on Digital Business Transformation. J. Compet. 2018 , 10 , 86–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hess, T.; Benlian, A.; Matt, C.; Wiesböck, F. How German Media Companies Defined Their Digital Transformation Strategies. MIS Q. Exec. 2016 , 15 , 103–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reddy, S.K.; Reinartz, W. Digital Transformation and Value Creation: Sea Change Ahead. Mark. Intell. Rev. 2017 , 9 , 10–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reinartz, W.; Wiegand, N.; Imschloss, M. The Impact of Digital Transformation on the Retailing Value Chain. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2019 , 36 , 350–366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vaska, S.; Massaro, M.; Bagarotto, E.M.; Dal Mas, F. The Digital Transformation of Business Model Innovation: A Structured Literature Review. Front. Psychol. 2021 , 11 , 3557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arjun, R.; Suprabha, K.R. Innovation and Challenges of Blockchain in Banking: A Scientometric View. Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 2020 , 6 , 7–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, J.; Wang, H.; Shen, H. Smartly Handling Renewable Energy Instability in Supporting a Cloud Datacenter. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), New Orleans, LA, USA, 18–22 May 2020; pp. 769–778. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fardbastani, M.A.; Allahdadi, F.; Sharifi, M. Business process monitoring via decentralized complex event processing. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2018 , 12 , 1257–1284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manogaran, G.; Rawal, B.S.; Saravanan, V.; Kumar, P.M.; Martínez, O.S.; Crespo, R.G.; Krishnamoorthy, S. Blockchain-Based Integrated Security Measure for Reliable Service Delegation in 6G Communication Environment. Comput. Commun. 2020 , 161 , 248–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Filimonau, V.; Naumova, E. The Blockchain Technology and the Scope of Its Application in Hospitality Operations. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020 , 87 , 102383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khelifi, H.; Luo, S.; Nour, B.; Moungla, H.; Ahmed, S.H.; Guizani, M. A Blockchain-Based Architecture for Secure VehicularNamed Data Networks. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2020 , 86 , 106715. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tönnissen, S.; Beinke, J.H.; Teuteberg, F. Understanding Token-Based Ecosystems—A Taxonomy of Blockchain-Based Business Models of Startups. Electron. Mark. 2020 , 30 , 307–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nguyen, Q.N.; Sidorova, A.; Torres, R. Artificial Intelligence in Business: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2022 , 50 , 7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable Business Model Innovation: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 198 , 401–416. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clauss, T. Measuring Business Model Innovation: Conceptualization, Scale Development, and Proof of Performance. R&D Manag. 2017 , 47 , 385–403. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moosavi, J.; Naeni, L.M.; Fathollahi-Fard, A.M.; Fiore, U. Blockchain in Supply Chain Management: A Review, Bibliometric, and Network Analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021 , 1 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Suša Vugec, D.; Tomicic-Pupek, K.; Vukšic, V.B. Social business process management in practice: Overcoming the limitations of the traditional business process management. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2018 , 10 , 1847979017750927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Makowski, E.K.; Wu, L.; Gupta, P.; Tessier, P.M. Discovery-Stage Identification of Drug-Like Antibodies Using Emerging Experimental and Computational Methods. MAbs 2021 , 13 , 1895540. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trischler, M.F.G.; Li-Ying, J. Digital Business Model Innovation: Toward Construct Clarity and Future Research Directions. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022 , 17 , 3–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teece, D.J. Business Models and Dynamic Capabilities. Long Range Plan. 2018 , 51 , 40–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blaschke, M.; Cigaina, M.; Riss, U.V.; Shoshan, I. Designing Business Models for the Digital Economy. In Shaping the Digital Enterprise ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 121–136. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snihur, Y.; Zott, C.; Amit, R. Managing the Value Appropriation Dilemma in Business Model Innovation. Strategy Sci. 2021 , 6 , 22–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Müller, S.; Hundahl, M. IT-Driven Business Model Innovation: Sources and Ripple Effects. Int. J. E-Bus. Res. 2018 , 14 , 14–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sjödin, D.; Parida, V.; Jovanovic, M.; Visnjic, I. Value Creation and Value Capture Alignment in Business Model Innovation: A Process View on Outcome-Based Business Models. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2020 , 37 , 158–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grieco, C.; Michelini, L.; Iasevoli, G. Which Sharing Are We Betting On? Analyzing the Financial Attractiveness of Sharing Business Models. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 314 , 75–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, Q.; He, D.; Zeadally, S.; Khan, M.K.; Kumar, N. A Survey on Privacy Protection in Blockchain System. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2019 , 126 , 45–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Minatogawa, V.; Franco, M.; Pinto, J.; Batocchio, A. Business Model Innovation Influencing Factors: An Integrative Literature Review. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018 , 15 , 610–617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Namasudra, S.; Deka, G.C.; Johri, P.; Hosseinpour, M.; Gandomi, A.H. The revolution of blockchain: State-of-the-art and research challenges. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2021 , 28 , 1497–1515. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Thomas, C.; FragaLamas, P.; Fernández-Caramés, T. Deploying blockchain technology in the supply chain. In Computer Security Threats ; BoD—Books on Demand: Norderstedt, Germany, 2019; Volume 57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khalifa, E. Blockchain: Technological Revolution in Business and Administration. Am. J. Manag. 2019 , 19 , 40–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahmad, L.; Khanji, S.; Iqbal, F.; Kamoun, F. Blockchain-based chain of custody: Towards real-time tamper-proof evidence management. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Virtual Event, 25–28 August 2020; pp. 1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rebello, G.A.F.; Camilo, G.F.; Guimaraes, L.C.; de Souza, L.A.C.; Thomaz, G.A.; Duarte, O.C.M. A security and performance analysis of proof-based consensus protocols. Ann. Telecommun. 2021 , 77 , 517–537. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borselli, A. Smart Contracts in Insurance: A Law and Futurology Perspective ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dutta, P.; Choi, T.-M.; Somani, S.; Butala, R. Blockchain technology in supply chain operations: Applications, challenges and research opportunities. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020 , 142 , 102067. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.; Han, J.H.; Beynon-Davies, P. Understanding blockchain technology for future supply chains: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 24 , 62–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, R.; Wakefield, R.; Lyu, S.; Jayasuriya, S.; Han, F.; Yi, X.; Yang, X.; Amarasinghe, G.; Chen, S. Public and private blockchain in construction business process and information integration. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 118 , 103276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Viriyasitavat, W.; Da Xu, L.; Bi, Z.; Pungpapong, V. Blockchain and internet of things for modern business process in digital economy—The state of the art. IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 2019 , 6 , 1420–1432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eggers, J.; Hein, A.; Weking, J.; Böhm, M.; Krcmar, H. Process automation on the blockchain: An exploratory case study on smart contracts. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 5 January 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gayialis, S.P.; Kechagias, E.P.; Papadopoulos, G.A.; Panayiotou, N.A. A Business Process Reference Model for the Development of a Wine Traceability System. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 11687. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hameed, K.; Barika, M.; Garg, S.; Amin, M.B.; Kang, B. A taxonomy study on securing Blockchain-based Industrial applications: An overview, application perspectives, requirements, attacks, countermeasures, and open issues. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2022 , 26 , 100312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Viriyasitavat, W.; Da Xu, L.; Bi, Z.; Sapsomboon, A. Blockchain-based business process management (BPM) framework for service composition in industry 4.0. J. Intell. Manuf. 2020 , 31 , 1737–1748. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bodkhe, U.; Tanwar, S.; Parekh, K.; Khanpara, P.; Tyagi, S.; Kumar, N.; Alazab, M. Blockchain for industry 4.0: A comprehensive review. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 79764–79800. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Upadhyay, N. Demystifying blockchain: A critical analysis of challenges, applications and opportunities. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020 , 54 , 102120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahmad, A.; Saad, M.; Al Ghamdi, M.; Nyang, D.; Mohaisen, D. Blocktrail: A service for secure and transparent blockchain-driven audit trails. IEEE Syst. J. 2021 , 16 , 1367–1378. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garg, P.; Gupta, B.; Chauhan, A.K.; Sivarajah, U.; Gupta, S.; Modgil, S. Measuring the perceived benefits of implementing blockchain technology in the banking sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021 , 163 , 120407. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyridis, D.V.; Andreadis, G.O.; Papaleonidas, C.; Tsiampa, V. A BPM-based framework for the impact assessment of blockchain to the midstream LNG supply chain. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2021 , 7 , 49–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vertakova, Y.V.; Golovina, T.A.; Polyanin, A.V. Synergy of blockchain technologies and “big data” in business process management of economic systems. In Proceedings of the Institute of Scientific Communications Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 20–22 June 2019; pp. 856–865. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia-Garcia, J.A.; Sánchez-Gómez, N.; Lizcano, D.; Escalona, M.J.; Wojdynski, T. Using blockchain to improve collaborative business process management: Systematic literature review. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 142312–142336. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Di Ciccio, C.; Meroni, G.; Plebani, P. Business process monitoring on blockchains: Potentials and challenges. In Proceedings of the Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling: 21st International Conference, BPMDS 2020, 25th International Conference, EMMSAD 2020, Held at CAiSE 2020, Grenoble, France, 8–9 June 2020; pp. 36–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Viriyasitavat, W.; Da Xu, L.; Niyato, D.; Bi, Z.; Hoonsopon, D. Applications of blockchain in business processes: A comprehensive review. IEEE Access 2022 , 10 , 118900–118925. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aagesen, G.; Krogstie, J. BPMN 2.0 for modeling business processes. In Handbook on Business Process Management 1: Introduction, Methods, and Information Systems ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 219–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sukhera, S. Modeling Process and Information Systems: Leveraging Technology to Improve Service Operations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, ON, Canada, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Filippi, P.; Mannan, M.; Reijers, W. Blockchain as a confidence machine: The problem of trust & challenges of governance. Technol. Soc. 2020 , 62 , 101284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yapa, C.; De Alwis, C.; Liyanage, M.; Ekanayake, J. Survey on blockchain for future smart grids: Technical aspects, applications, integration challenges and future research. Energy Rep. 2021 , 7 , 6530–6564. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leng, J.; Ruan, G.; Jiang, P.; Xu, K.; Liu, Q.; Zhou, X.; Liu, C. Blockchain-empowered sustainable manufacturing and product life cycle management in industry 4.0: A survey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020 , 132 , 110112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osterland, T.; Jarke, M.; Karagiannis, D.; Rose, T. Analyzing the Sustainability of Distributed Ledger Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitätsbibliothek der RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khan, S.N.; Loukil, F.; Ghedira-Guegan, C.; Benkhelifa, E.; Bani-Hani, A. Blockchain smart contracts: Applications, challenges, and future trends. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 2021 , 14 , 2901–2925. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nawari, N.O.; Ravindran, S. Blockchain technology and BIM process: Review and potential applications. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2019 , 24 , 209–238. [ Google Scholar ]
• Porru, S.; Pinna, A.; Marchesi, M.; Tonelli, R. Blockchain-oriented software engineering: Challenges and new directions. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 20–28 May 2017; pp. 169–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Ciccio, C.; Meroni, G.; Plebani, P. On the adoption of blockchain for business process monitoring. Softw. Syst. Model. 2022 , 21 , 915–937. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Viriyasitavat, W.; Hoonsopon, D. Blockchain characteristics and consensus in modern business processes. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2019 , 13 , 32–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Milani, F.; Garcia-Banuelos, L.; Filipova, S.; Markovska, M. Modelling blockchain-based business processes: A comparative analysis of BPMN vs. CMMN. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2021 , 27 , 638–657. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Demichev, A.; Kryukov, A.; Prikhod’ko, N. Business Process Engineering for Data Storing and Processing in a Collaborative Distributed Environment Based on Provenance Metadata, Smart Contracts and Blockchain Technology. J. Grid Comput. 2021 , 19 , 3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kopp, A.; Orlovskyi, D. Towards the Tokenization of Business Process Models using the Blockchain Technology and Smart Contracts. CMIS 2022 , 3137 , 274–287. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu, Q.; Binh Tran, A.; Weber, I.; O’Connor, H.; Rimba, P.; Xu, X.; Staples, M.; Zhu, L.; Jeffery, R. Integrated model-driven engineering of blockchain applications for business processes and asset management. Softw. Pract. Exp. 2021 , 51 , 1059–1079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Tucci, C.L. Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2017 , 41 , 1–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Antonopoulos, A.M. Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies ; O’Reilly Media, Inc.: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mougayar, W. The Business Blockchain: Promise, Practice, and Application of the Next Internet Technology ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buterin, V. A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform. 2014. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-NEXT-GENERATION-SMART-CONTRACT-&-DECENTRALIZED-Buterin/0dbb8a54ca5066b82fa086bbf5db4c54b947719a (accessed on 5 December 2023).
• Croman, K.; Decker, C.; Eyal, I.; Gencer, A.E.; Juels, A.; Kosba, A.E.; Miller, A.; Saxena, P.; Shi, E.; Sirer, E.G.; et al. On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains. 2016. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1159.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2023).
• Tapscott, D.; Tapscott, A. Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World ; Penguin: London, UK, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim, Y.; Lacity, M.C. Leveraging Blockchain technology to enhance supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2018 , 54 , 3–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, J.; Zhao, H.; Li, X.; Shi, Y. Blockchain technology and its applications in the food supply chain. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019 , 91 , 237–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan, J.; Yang, Z.; Lai, K.K. Blockchain technology for food traceability: A systematic review of the current status, applications, and future prospects. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020 , 106 , 215–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarmah, S.P.; Yen, D.C. Blockchain for supply chain traceability: A systematic review of the literature. J. Bus. Res. 2020 , 116 , 461–472. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, S.; Li, J.; Li, Y.; Li, H. Blockchain-based supply chain finance: A systematic review and future research directions. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 2722. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, T.; Cao, L. Blockchain-based supply chain finance: A case study. IEEE Access 2019 , 7 , 145540–145548. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorri, A.; Kanhere, S.S.; Jurdak, R.; Gauravaram, P. Blockchain for IoT security and privacy: The case study of a smart home. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), Seoul, Republic of Korea, 14–17 May 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 257–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo, Y.; Li, Y. Blockchain for supply chain management: A bibliometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 305 , 127031. [ Google Scholar ]
• Srinivasan, A.; Srivastava, B.; Teo, C.P. Blockchain in supply chain management: An analysis of applications and potentials. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019 , 46 , 87–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, J.; Lee, D.; Lee, I.; Kim, K. An analysis of Blockchain adoption in supply chain management: A literature review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 406. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeng, Y.; Xu, X.; Xu, X. The impact of Blockchain on supply chain management: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019 , 49 , 36–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• He, Q.; Zeng, D.; Li, X.; Chen, Y. Research on Blockchain-based intelligent supply chain management system. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021 , 17 , 390–398. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fanning, K.; Centers, D.P. Blockchain and its coming impact on supply chain management. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018 , 114 , 264–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu, X.; Xu, X.; Liang, X. The application of Blockchain in e-supply chain management. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI), Singapore, 31 July–2 August 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 416–420. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, H.; Jiang, B. Blockchain technology in logistics and supply chain management: A review. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2019 , 8 , 85–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reijers, H.A. Business Process Management: The evolution of a discipline. Comput. Ind. 2021 , 126 , 103404. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sarkis, J.; Cohen, M.; Dewick, P.; Schröder, P. Blockchain and supply chain: A review, a proposed framework, and future implications. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 57 , 2117–2135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petrini, M.; Pozzebon, M. Blockchain technology for supply chain: A review. In Proceedings of the 2018 6th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), Barcelona, Spain, 6–8 August 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 140–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, J.; Liu, J. Blockchain technology and supply chain financing. In Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation, Big Data & Smart City (ICITBS), Vientiane, Laos, 11–12 January 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tse, E. Blockchain and supply chain finance: The missing link. In Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion ; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 375–387. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood, G. Ethereum: A Secure Decentralized Generalized Transaction Ledger. 2014. Available online: https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/ (accessed on 7 June 2024).
• Paliwal, V.; Chandra, S.; Sharma, S. Blockchain Technology for Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review and a Classification Framework. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 7638. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vistro, D.M.; Farooq, M.S.; Rehman, A.U.; Sultan, H. Applications and Challenges of Blockchain with IoT in Food Supply Chain Management System: A Review. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Integrated Intelligent Computing Communication & Security (ICIIC 2021), Bangalore, India, 6–7 August 2021; Volume 4, pp. 596–605. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hussain, M.; Javed, W.; Hakeem, O.; Yousafzai, A.; Younas, A.; Awan, M.J.; Nobanee, H.; Zain, A.M. Blockchain-Based IoT Devices in Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 3646. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deepa, N.; Pham, Q.V.; Nguyen, D.C.; Bhattacharya, S.; Prabadevi, B.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Maddikunta, P.K.R.; Fang, F.; Pathirana, P.N. A survey on blockchain for big data: Approaches, opportunities, and future directions. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2022 , 209–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kassen, M. Blockchain and e-government innovation: Automation of public information processes. Inf. Syst. 2022 , 103 , 101862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Malik, S.; Kanhere, S.S.; Jurdak, R. ProductChain: Scalable blockchain framework to support provenance in supply chains. In Proceedings of the NCA 2018—2018 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1–3 November 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mangla, S.K.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Ekinci, E.; Liu, M.; Özbiltekin, M.; Sezer, M.D. Using system dynamics to analyze the societal impacts of blockchain technology in milk supply chains refer. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021 , 149 , 102289. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manolache, M.A.; Tapus, N. Universal resource management and logistics using blockchain technology. In Proceedings of the Proceedings—2019 22nd International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science, CSCS 2019, Bucharest, Romania, 28–30 May 2019; pp. 575–582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manupati, V.K.K.; Schoenherr, T.; Ramkumar, M.; Wagner, S.M.S.M.; Pabba, S.K.S.K. Inder Raj Singh, R.. A blockchain-based approach for a multi-echelon sustainable supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 58 , 2222–2241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mao, D.; Wang, F.; Hao, Z.; Li, H. Credit evaluation system based on blockchain for multiple stakeholders in the food supply chain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018 , 15 , 1627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Marinello, F.; Atzori, M.; Lisi, L.; Boscaro, D.; Pezzuolo, A. Development of a traceability system for the animal product supply chain based on blockchain technology. In Proceedings of the Precision Livestock Farming 2017—Papers Presented at the 8th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming, ECPLF 2017, Nantes, France, 12–14 September 2017; pp. 258–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maroun, E.A.E.A.; Daniel, J. Opportunities for use of blockchain technology in supply chains: Australian manufacturer case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Bangkok, Thailand, 5–7 March 2019; pp. 1603–1613. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martins, G.J.D.U.; Reis, J.Z.; Petroni, B.C.A.; Gonçalves, R.F.; Andrlic, B. Evaluating a Blockchain-Based Supply Chain Purchasing Process Through Simulation. In IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mathivathanan, D.; Mathiyazhagan, K.; Rana, N.P.; Khorana, S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Barriers to the adoption of block chain technology in business supply chains: A total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021 , 59 , 3338–3359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mattke, J.; Hund, A.; Maier, C.; Weitzel, T. How an enterprise blockchain application in the U.S. Pharmaceuticals supply chain is saving lives. MIS Q. Exec. 2019 , 18 , 245–261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, M.H.; Qian, Y. A Blockchain Aided Metric for Predictive Delivery Performance in Supply Chain Management. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, SOLI, Singapore, 31 July–2 August 2018; pp. 285–290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Merkaš, Z.; Perkov, D.; Bonin, V. The significance of blockchain technology in digital transformation of logistics and transportation. Int. J. E-Serv. Mob. Appl. 2020 , 12 , 1–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mezquita, Y.; González-Briones, A.; Casado-Vara, R.; Chamoso, P.; Prieto, J.; Corchado, J.M. Blockchain-based architecture: A MAS proposal for efficient agri-food supply chains. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Min, H. Blockchain technology for enhancing supply chain resilience. Bus. Horiz. 2019 , 62 , 35–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mirabelli, G.; Solina, V. Blockchain and agricultural supply chains traceability: Research trends and future challenges. Procedia Manuf. 2020 , 42 , 414–421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Molina, J.C.; Delgado, D.T.; Tarazona, G. Using blockchain for traceability in the drug supply chain. In Communications in Computer and Information Science ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mondal, S.; Wijewardena, K.P.; Karuppuswami, S.; Kriti, N.; Kumar, D.; Chahal, P. Blockchain inspired RFID-based information architecture for food supply chain. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019 , 6 , 5803–5813. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mondragon, A.E.C.; Coronado, C.E.; Coronado, E.S. Investigating the Applicability of Distributed Ledger/Blockchain Technology in Manufacturing and Perishable Goods Supply Chains. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 6th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications, ICIEA, Tokyo, Japan, 12–15 April 2019; pp. 728–732. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mondragon, A.E.C.; Mondragon, C.E.C.; Coronado, E.S. Feasibility of Internet of Things and Agnostic Blockchain Technology Solutions: A Case in the Fisheries Supply Chain. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 7th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications, ICIEA, Bangkok, Thailand, 16–21 April 2020; pp. 504–508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mondragon, A.E.C.; Mondragon, C.E.C.; Coronado, E.S. Exploring the applicability of blockchain technology to enhance manufacturing supply chains in the composite materials industry. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Applied System Invention, ICASI, Chiba, Japan, 13–17 April 2018; pp. 1300–1303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montecchi, M.; Plangger, K.; Etter, M. It’s real, trust me! Establishing supply chain provenance using blockchain. Bus. Horiz. 2019 , 62 , 283–293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morten Komdeur, E.F.; Ingenbleek, P.T.M. The potential of blockchain technology in the procurement of sustainable timber products. Int. Wood Prod. J. 2021 , 12 , 249–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moudoud, H.; Cherkaoui, S.; Khoukhi, L. An IoT Blockchain Architecture Using Oracles and Smart Contracts: The Use-Case of a Food Supply Chain. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, PIMRC, Istanbul, Turkey, 8–11 September 2019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mukherjee, A.A.; Singh, R.K.; Mishra, R.; Bag, S. Application of blockchain technology for sustainability development in agricultural supply chain: Justification framework. Oper. Manag. Res. 2021 , 15 , 46–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaur, R.; Sandhu, R.S.; Gera, A.; Kaur, T.; Gera, P. Intelligent Voice Bots for Digital Banking. In Proceedings of the Smart Systems and IoT: Innovations in Computing, Jaipur, India, 18–20 January 2019; Volume 141, pp. 401–409. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aithal, S.; Karan, K.P. Massive Growth of Banking Technology with the Aid of 5G Technology. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2015 , 5 , 617–626. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bunea, D.; Karakitsos, P.; Merriman, N.; Studener, W. Profit Distribution and Loss Coverage Rules for Central Banks ; ECB Occasional Paper 169; European Central Bank: Frankfurt, Germany, 2016; pp. 1–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burda, D.; Teuteberg, F. The role of trust and risk perceptions in cloud archiving—Results from an empirical study. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2014 , 25 , 172–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vial, G. Understanding Digital Transformation: A Review and A Research Agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019 , 28 , 118–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chao, C.-M. Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: An application and extension of the UTAUT model. Front. Psychol. 2019 , 10 , 1652. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chaouali, W.; Yahia, I.B.; Souiden, N. The interplay of counter-conformity motivation, social influence, and trust in customers’ intention to adopt Internet banking services: The case of an emerging country. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016 , 28 , 209–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheng, R.J. UTAUT implementation of cryptocurrency-based Islamic financing instrument. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020 , 10 , 873–884. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches ; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cucari, N.; Lagasio, V.; Lia, G.; Torrier, C. The impact of blockchain in banking processes: The Interbank Spunta case study. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2022 , 34 , 138–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dwivedi, Y.K.; Ismagilova, E.; Sarker, P.; Jeyaraj, A.; Jadil, Y.; Hughes, L. A meta-analytic structural equation model for understanding social commerce adoption. Inf. Syst. Front. 2021 , 25 , 1421–1437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.R.; Jeyaraj, A.; Clement, M.; Williams, M.F.D. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019 , 21 , 719–734. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scott, F.W.; Wall, L.D.; White, L.J. Technological Change and Financial Innovation in Banking: Some Implications for Fintech. 2018. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3261732 (accessed on 3 March 2022).
• Franch-Pardo, I.; Napoletano, B.M.; Rosete-Verges, F.; Billa, L. Spatial analysis and GIS in the study of COVID-19. A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 739 , 140033. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Franque, F.B.; Oliveira, T.; Tam, C. Continuance intention of mobile payment: TTF model with Trust in an African context. Inf. Syst. Front. 2022 , 25 , 775–793. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Junqueira, G.C.; Ferreira, J.B.; da Silva, J.F.; Ferreira, D.B. The effects of trust transference, mobile attributes and enjoyment on mobile trust. BAR-Braz. Adm. Rev. 2015 , 12 , 88–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gupta, A.; Gupta, S. Blockchain technology: Application in Indian banking sector. Delhi Bus. Rev. 2018 , 19 , 75–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gupta, S.; Ghardallou, W.; Pandey, D.K.; Sahu, G.P. Artificial intelligence adoption in the insurance industry: Evidence using the technology–organization–environment framework. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2022 , 5 , 101757. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haferkorn, M.; Diaz, J.M.Q. Seasonality and interconnectivity within cryptocurrencies-an analysis on the basis of bitcoin, litecoin and namecoin. Int. Workshop Enterp. Appl. Serv. Financ. Ind. 2014 , 217 , 106–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hair, J.F.; Matthews, L.M., Jr.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017 , 1 , 107–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heidari, H.; Mousakhani, M.; Alborzi, M.; Divandari, A.; Radfar, R. Explaining the Blockchain Acceptance Indices in Iran Financial Markets: A Fuzzy Delphi Study. J. Money Econ. 2019 , 14 , 335–365. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hew, T.S.; Kadir, S.L.S.A. Predicting instructional effectiveness of cloud-based virtual learning environment. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016 , 116 , 1557–1584. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hmoud, B.I.; Várallyai, L. Artificial intelligence in human resources information systems: Investigating its trust and adoption determinants. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2020 , 5 , 749–765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jena, R.K. Exploring Antecedents of Peoples’ Intentions to Use Smart Services in a Smart City Environment: An Extended UTAUT Model. J. Inf. Syst. 2022 , 36 , 133–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jevsikova, T.; Gabrielė, S.; Stumbrienė, D.; Juškevičienė, A.; Dagienė, V. Acceptance of distance learning technologies by teachers: Determining factors and emergency state influence. Informatica 2021 , 32 , 517–542. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karim, S.; Rabbani, M.R.; Bawazir, H. Applications of blockchain technology in the finance and banking industry beyond digital currencies. In Blockchain Technology and Computational Excellence for Society 5.0 ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 216–238. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kawasmi, Z.; Gyasi, E.A.; Dadd, D. Blockchain adoption model for the global banking industry. J. Int. Technol. Inf. Manag. 2020 , 28 , 112–154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khalil, M.; Khawaja, K.F.; Sarfraz, M. The adoption of blockchain technology in the financial sector during the era of fourth industrial revolution: A moderated mediated model. Qual. Quant. 2021 , 56 , 2435–2452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kopp, T.; Baumgartner, M.; Kinkel, S. How Linguistic Framing Affects Factory Workers’ Initial Trust in Collaborative Robots: The Interplay Between Anthropomorphism and Technological Replacement. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2022 , 158 , 102730. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumari, A.; Devi, N.C. Determinants of user’s behavioural intention to use blockchain technology in the digital banking services. Int. J. Electron. Financ. 2022 , 11 , 159–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MacDonald, T.J.; Allen, D.W.E.; Potts, J. Blockchains and the boundaries of self-organized economies: Predictions for the future of banking. In Banking beyond Banks and Money ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 279–296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manchon, J.-B.; Bueno, M.; Navarro, J. How the initial level of trust in automated driving impacts drivers’ behaviour and early trust construction. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022 , 86 , 281–295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martins, C.; Oliveira, T.; Popovič, A. Understanding the Internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014 , 34 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masrek, M.N.; Mohamed, I.S.; Daud, N.M.; Omar, N. Technology trust and mobile banking satisfaction: A case of Malaysian consumers. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014 , 129 , 53–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nazim, N.F.; Razis, N.M.; Hatta, M.F.M. Behavioural intention to adopt blockchain technology among bankers in islamic financial system: Perspectives in Malaysia. Rom. J. Inf. Technol. Autom. Control. 2021 , 31 , 11–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oliveira, T.; Faria, M.; Thomas, M.A.; Popovič, A. Extending the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014 , 34 , 689–703. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Osmani, M.; El-Haddadeh, R.; Hindi, N.; Janssen, M.; Weerakkody, V. Blockchain for next generation services in banking and finance: Cost, benefit, risk and opportunity analysis. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020 , 34 , 884–899. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patel, R.; Migliavacca, M.; Oriani, M. Blockchain in banking and finance: A bibliometric review. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2022 , 62 , 101718. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patki, A.; Sople, V. Indian banking sector: Blockchain implementation, challenges and way forward. J. Bank. Financ. Technol. 2020 , 4 , 65–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raza, S.A.; Qazi, W.; Khan, K.A.; Salam, J. Social isolation and acceptance of the learning management system (LMS) in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: An expansion of the UTAUT model. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2021 , 59 , 183–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oliveira, T.; Alhinho, M.; Rita, P.; Dhillon, G. Modelling and testing consumer trust dimensions in e-commerce. Computers in Human Behavior 2017 , 71 , 153–164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saputra, U.W.E.; Darma, G.S. The Intention to Use Blockchain in Indonesia Using Extended Approach Technology Aceptance Model (TAM). CommIT (Commun. Inf. Technol.) J. 2022 , 16 , 27–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goudenege, L.; Molent, A.; Zanette, A. Machine learning for pricing American options in high-dimensional Markovian and non-Markovian models. Quant. Financ. 2020 , 20 , 573–591. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsubaie, S.M.; Mahmoud, K.H.; Bossman, A.; Asafo-Adjei, E. Vulnerability of sustainable Islamic stock returns to implied market volatilities: An asymmetric approach. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2022 , 2022 , 3804871. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, X.; Niu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Huang, J.; Zuo, X. Can gold and bitcoin hedge against the COVID-19 related news sentiment risk? New evidence from a NARDL approach. Resour. Policy 2022 , 79 , 103098. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Basdekis, C.; Christopoulos, A.; Katsampoxakis, I.; Nastas, V. The impact of the Ukrainian war on stock and energy markets: A wavelet coherence analysis. Energies 2022 , 15 , 8174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Angerer, M.; Hoffmann, C.H.; Neitzert, F.; Kraus, S. Objective and subjective risks of investing. Financ. Res. Lett. 2021 , 40 , 101737. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Charfeddine, L.; Benlagha, N.; Maouchi, Y. Investigating the dynamic relationship between cryptocurrencies and conventional assets: Implications for financial investors. Econ. Model. 2020 , 85 , 198–217. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gandal, N.; Hamrick, J.T.; Moore, T.; Oberman, T. Price manipulation in the Bitcoin ecosystem. J. Monet. Econ. 2018 , 95 , 86–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abbasi, G.A.; Tiew, L.Y.; Tang, J.; Goh, Y.N.; Thurasamy, R. The adoption of cryptocurrency as a disruptive force: Deep learning-based dual stage structural equation modelling and artificial neural network analysis. PLoS ONE 2021 , 16 , e0247582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Basdekidou, V.; Papapanagos, H. Blockchain Technology Adoption for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities: A Systematic Literature Review for Corporate Management, Supply Chain, Banking Industry, and Stock Markets. Digital 2024 , 4 , 762-803. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4030039

Basdekidou V, Papapanagos H. Blockchain Technology Adoption for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities: A Systematic Literature Review for Corporate Management, Supply Chain, Banking Industry, and Stock Markets. Digital . 2024; 4(3):762-803. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4030039

Basdekidou, Vasiliki, and Harry Papapanagos. 2024. "Blockchain Technology Adoption for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities: A Systematic Literature Review for Corporate Management, Supply Chain, Banking Industry, and Stock Markets" Digital 4, no. 3: 762-803. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4030039

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals