sustainability

Article
Transformational and Transactional Leaders and Their Role in
Implementing the Kotter Change Management Model Ensuring
Sustainable Change: An Empirical Study
Ali M. Mouazen 1, * , Ana Beatriz Hernández-Lara 2 , Farid Abdallah 3 , Muhieddine Ramadan 1 , Jawad Chahine 3 ,
Hala Baydoun 1 and Najib Bou Zakhem 1

1 Management and International Management Department, Lebanese International University/International

of Beirut, Beirut 14404, Lebanon; [email protected] (M.R.); [email protected] (H.B.);
[email protected] (N.B.Z.)
2 Department of Business Management, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Avinguda Universitat 1,
43204 Reus, Spain; [email protected]
3 College of Business, Australian University, Kuwait City 40255, Kuwait; [email protected] (F.A.);
[email protected] (J.C.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: A rapid pace of change presents an unforeseen and perpetual competitive challenge for
organizations. Despite the existence of numerous change management models, organizational change
leaders often encounter obstacles during the implementation phase that limit change effectiveness.
This paper seeks to make a difference in managerial actions, specifically when implementing planned
change, by directing them to use specific leadership actions during the change stage. While previous
research has acknowledged the potential linkage between leadership and change effectiveness, a
comprehensive exploration of this relationship within the realm of strategic change management
remains lacking. This study aims to address this gap by comparing transactional and transforma-
tional leadership styles through the lens of the leadership-as-practice perspective. Specifically, this
paper analyzes the alignment of these leadership styles with the Kotter model for implementing
Citation: Mouazen, A.M.;
Hernández-Lara, A.B.; Abdallah, F.; organizational change and investigates which leadership components or behaviors positively impact
Ramadan, M.; Chahine, J.; Baydoun, predetermined stages of change. Using the MLQ and a developed Kotter questionnaire, data was col-
H.; Bou Zakhem, N. Transformational lected from 385 Lebanese employees working in SMEs experiencing change across the five provinces
and Transactional Leaders and Their of Lebanon. PLS structural equation modeling was utilized to analyze the results, and the GoF value
Role in Implementing the Kotter indicated that the study model is valid to be considered as a PLS global model. Our findings shed
Change Management Model Ensuring light on the dynamic interplay between leadership efficacy and distinct change stages. Rooted in
Sustainable Change: An Empirical the leadership-as-practice perspective, this study contributes a nuanced understanding of effective
Study. Sustainability 2024, 16, 16.
leadership’s crucial role in navigating the multifaceted challenges of organizational change, offering
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010016
insights for practitioners and scholars alike.
Academic Editor: Virginia Bodolica
Keywords: planned change management; leadership as practice; sustainable change
Received: 29 October 2023
Revised: 1 December 2023
Accepted: 13 December 2023
Published: 19 December 2023
1. Introduction
For decades, academics have been interested in how organizations change. Within this
realm, Kotter [1] envisioned change as a potent catalyst for orchestrating the metamorphosis
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. of individuals, groups, and organizations towards a more promising and desirable future.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Over time, myriad planned and unplanned change management models have emerged, of-
This article is an open access article
fering guidance to managers navigating the multifaceted process of change implementation.
distributed under the terms and
Scholarly works in the field of organization development and change literature have been
conditions of the Creative Commons
examined, highlighting their crucial contributions to the process of change [2–8]. Moreover,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the significance of the Kotter change model has been demonstrated in several industries
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
and activities, including the education sector [9,10], organizational learning [11], quality
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010016 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 2 of 34

management [12], and the healthcare industry [13,14]. Yet, an enigmatic gap persists—one
that bridges the chasm between leadership styles and Kotter’s seminal eight-stage change
management model, a gap that is now particularly apt to be explored through the lens of
leadership-as-practice (LAP) to ensure an organizations sustainability.
Despite the fact that Kotter and Cohen [15] confirm that effective implementation of
the model is primarily dependent on leadership style and that a transformational leadership
style is essential for sustainable performance [16], recent research has not investigated the
link between leadership styles and Kotter’s eight-stage change management model from
a leadership-as-practice perspective. Previous research has addressed transformational
leadership style and staff commitment to change as topics [17–20], as well as the type of
change [21], transformational successful change implementation with respect to leadership
and leadership skills [22], and leadership dimensions and the Kotter change model [23]. As
a consequence, although earlier research has shown a substantial correlation between the
competencies, abilities, talents, and behaviors of change agent leaders and the accomplish-
ment or underachievement of organizational objectives and change [24,25], significant gaps
remain. The majority of leadership studies that examined the link between organizational
change and leadership, according to Yukl [26], failed to adequately illustrate the connection
between leadership styles and change management models by failing to account for the
complexity of internal processes, such as planned change efforts and execution. Likewise,
no previous research has looked at the link between leadership styles, as proposed by Bass
and Avolio [27], and the Kotter change management model [28]. To bridge this gap, this
study endeavors to establish a link between these gaps by suggesting that, from a practical
perspective, leaders adept in both transactional and transformational leadership styles
are primed to proficiently facilitate the implementation of the Kotter change management
model. This study contributes in two ways: practical and theoretical. In practical terms,
it equips organizational leaders with useful strategies, methods, and leadership styles to
make the Kotter change model effective within their specific organizational context and
ensure sustainable change. Theoretically, it advances scholarly research by adding to our
understanding of how leadership styles and the use of change models interact—an area that
has not been explored much within the realm of leadership-as-practice (LAP). This study
also invites further scholarly investigation and thought, particularly in various countries
like the MENA region, where economic challenges or new development approaches can
trigger significant organizational changes.

2. Literature Review
Kotter [28] introduced the 8-step Kotter change model (KCM) to help managers deal
with change. People will not embrace change until they sense a need for it, according
to Kotter and Cohen [15], who noted at the first phase, “Creating a Sense of Urgency
(SU)”, that examining market and environmental competition dynamics for available
opportunities and potential threats might help identify this requirement. The second
phase, “Form a Powerful Coalition (PC)”, involves finding employees who can initiate
change, convey objectives, establish teams, and convince coworkers to accept change. These
employees should be forceful, knowledgeable, credible, and leadership oriented. In the
third phase, “Create a Vision and Strategy (VC)”, stakeholders in general are interested
in the future; therefore, leaders must provide workers with direction, inspire them, and
coordinate their efforts by articulating a practical, adaptable, desired, and communicative
vision. The fourth phase, “Communicate the Vision (CV)”, emphasizes the need to
present and communicate the well-defined organizational vision in order to maintain the
momentum of the transition process. To ensure that employees are informed of the necessity
of the change and how it will be implemented, leaders should make use of all available
channels of communication [4]. With regard to the fifth phase, “Remove Obstacles (RO)”,
Kotter suggested removing roadblocks, identifying those opposed to change, changing
organizational policies, procedures, and structure, encouraging taking risks and innovative
practices, and equipping staff with the necessary information, abilities, and tools to carry out
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 3 of 34

tasks in new ways. The sixth stage, “Create Short-Term Wins (CSTW)”, aims to encourage
staff by offering complimentary comments on their achievements throughout the early
stages of change, as well as recognizing and rewarding them for their efforts. The seventh,
“Build on Change (BC)”, emphasizes the need for leaders to report on accomplishments and
direct staff toward future improvements. By nurturing and persevering in the continuous
change process, leaders also urge more workers to participate in it [29]. The eighth step,
dubbed “Anchoring Approaches in Culture (AC)”, pertains to incorporating the attained
changes and modifications into new standards and procedures. These actions will increase
productivity while also ensuring that the new practices are ingrained in the culture so that
both new and experienced employees can use them [4].
Kotter’s change model, in general, provides a realistic method for managing change.
The model has all of the necessary components to lay the groundwork for success. Main-
taining an open line of communication throughout the change process motivates workers
to implement change and deflects resistance to participating in the process at various
stages, supporting the implementation of change as a regular practice. However, given
the importance of trust in change [30], if trust between workers, leaders, and the steering
coalition is low, the strategy may not work well, especially in centralized conventional
hierarchical organizations that need continual feedback on execution and implementation.
Sustainability has acted as a driving force for organizations, and leaders, to change;
successful change implementation is strongly reliant on leadership [31]. Leadership has
typically been seen as the outcomes of leadership, person leadership, process leadership,
and position leadership, according to Grint [32] and Wood [33]. On the other hand, other
academics argue leadership is more than just a person or a role; it is about a degree of
passion and determination that unifies people under a common vision and objectives [34].
Drath and Palus [35] anticipate that future leaders must have traits such as the ability
to inspire and persuade followers, as well as interpersonal skills and structured connec-
tions. Thus, communication between leaders and followers initiates the foundation of
leadership [36,37] in order to significantly impact organizational processes [38]. Moreover,
leaders who promote an optimistic outlook and positive mindset [39], encourage and
train employees to acknowledge and embrace change [40], and validate those expected
results [41]. These qualities define transformational leadership [38].
Academics have defined leadership as the power to persuade people to accomplish
organizational objectives [42]. They hold that a leader’s personality, traits, skills, and ac-
tions make up their leadership style [43], despite the plethora of leadership paradigms and
theories available [44]. Bass [45] presented transformational and transactional leadership
styles, which remain the most popular approaches in the fields of management and social
science [46]. Three dimensions form the TRLS (transactional leadership style). Contingent
reward (CR) relates to a leader’s actions in rewarding and praising subordinates for their
outstanding work and achievement of predetermined objectives. Leaders in Active Man-
agement by Exception (MBEA) actively monitor performance. Thus, when performance
deviates from the set of norms and standards, the leader takes immediate remedial action.
However, in Passive Management by Exceptions (MBEP), leaders observe deviations
from standards and rules and only interfere if the requirements are not fulfilled. Bass [45]
recommended that change agents remain proactive throughout the transformation process.
Accordingly, only the MBEA and CR pillars of the TRLS will be examined in relation to the
KCM in this study. In contrast, four pillars of the transformational leadership style (TFLS)
were addressed. Idealized influence indicates that charismatic and visionary leaders are
credible, honest, and trusted, capable of inspiring and influencing others—either by behav-
iors (IIB) or attributes (IIA)—to follow the leader willingly and support their goals rather
than their own. However, when leaders establish, communicate, and execute inspiring
goals, they are referred to as Inspirational Motivation (IM). Leaders have a high degree
of ambition, passion, and optimism, which has an impact on team spirit. Leaders assist
followers to experience the importance of their work through communication. In order
to harness their problem-solving and decision-making talents, intellectual stimulation
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 4 of 34

(IS) includes fostering and developing followers’ creativity, inventiveness, and reasonable
thinking. Through individual consideration (IC), the leader pays attention to advising,
coaching, and nurturing followers, as well as developing their talents and competences, all
while considering his or her own personal and professional requirements [47]. Providing a
comprehensive review of leadership styles and change literature is beyond the purview of
this work, but it has been established that more empirical evidence is needed on the role of
a leader’s actions and style in procedures for managing change [25], as well as attracting
followers to participate in change [48]. Employee commitment, according to Kotter and Co-
hen [15], is critical during a transition. In this context, Herold et al. [19] conducted research
on firms experiencing change in Western nations to examine the association between several
leadership change techniques, approaches, behaviors, and practices, and employee commit-
ment to the change process. Their findings revealed that transformational leadership has an
advantage over change-specific leadership techniques in terms of employee commitment.
Weiherl and Masal [20] confirmed this relationship in several business industries in their
investigation. Additionally, Gelaidan and Ahmad [49] confirmed that the employee change
commitment in public organizations in the Arabian region is likewise favorably correlated
with transformational leadership. Additionally, they found that idealized influence and
individual considerations strongly impact all aspects of employee commitment.
From a broad viewpoint, in a variety of fields, leadership concepts and organiza-
tional transformation have been well studied. For example, Lirong and Minxin [50] re-
vealed that organizational change processes are positively impacted by transactional and
transformational leadership styles, and der Voet, Kuipers, and Groeneveld [22] found
that transformational leadership positively affects organizational change. What is more,
Alqatawenh [17] exposed that empowerment, idealized influence, intellectual stimula-
tion, and inspirational motivation foster transformation processes. Der Voet [51] showed
that transformational leadership enhances planned change approaches, particularly in
emerging changes, in the same way as the Kotter model does. Extensive research has
been conducted by Kakucha [52] on the relationship between Kurt Lewin’s three-stage
transformation model and the charismatic leadership style; however, this work lacked
empirical investigation. Meanwhile, Bakari, Hunjra, and Niazi [53] applied SEM to in-
vestigate the link between Lewin’s model and authentic leadership. However, Seijts and
Gandz [23] went a step further by outlining a leader’s traits, such as temperance, drive,
humility, bravery, cooperation, integrity, humanism, transcendence, justice, judgment, and
accountability. Afterwards, Seijts and Gandz [23] linked these dimensions to the Kotter
change management model. In their research, they found that humility, integrity, justice,
judgment, transcendence, humanity, temperance, and collaboration are essential to forming
a powerful leading coalition. In the last step of Kotter’s planned change model, the leader
should demonstrate all the listed traits. According to Seijts and Gandz [23], their hypothesis
was based on real-life occurrences involving senior executives from major corporations,
rather than a quantitative investigation.
In this sense, leadership-as-practice (LAP) has emerged as a prominent framework that
redefines leadership by shifting the focus from an individualistic approach to a collective
and context-dependent perspective [54], especially indicating that leaders play a vital role
in positioning their organizations to be more adaptable to new practices [55].
LAP emphasizes leadership as an enacted process embedded within day-to-day in-
teractions and activities, challenging traditional notions of leadership as a set of fixed
traits [56]. Effective organizational leaders play a crucial role in developing sustainable
growth; they possess the ability to inspire and motivate their employees, encouraging
them to embrace innovation and adapt to new challenges [57]. By fostering a culture of
continuous improvement and learning, leaders can ensure that their organization remains
competitive and resilient in an ever-evolving business environment. Furthermore, leaders
who prioritize change, sustainability, and organizational development understand the
importance of balancing economic, environmental, and social factors that are nowadays
considered to be the main business practices. Ultimately, their commitment to sustainable
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 5 of 34

organizational development sets an example for others to follow and contributes to a more
sustainable future. By adopting sustainable change practices, leaders not only reduce
their organization’s negative impact on the environment but also attract socially conscious
customers and investors who align with their values [58].
In the context of implementing change, on the one hand, leadership behaviors play an
important role in the readiness for change, as outlined by Alolabi, Ayupp, and Dwaikat [59].
On the other hand, LAP holds particular relevance when linked to Kotter’s change man-
agement model. Kotter’s model, with its eight-stage framework, focuses on guiding
organizations through successful change [28]. The alignment between LAP and Kotter’s
model is evident in their shared emphasis on leadership as a dynamic practice rather than
a static concept. The synergy between LAP and Kotter’s model becomes evident when
exploring the implementation of change initiatives. LAP views leadership as an ongoing,
collaborative process that involves multiple actors and practices [60]. This aligns with
Kotter’s emphasis on fostering a coalition of change agents and empowering employees to
drive change [28]. Furthermore, LAP highlights the importance of the relational aspects of
leadership, which echoes Kotter’s call for creating a sense of urgency and building a guid-
ing coalition to facilitate change [4]. Both approaches acknowledge the role of relationships
and social dynamics in successful change implementation.
However, while LAP enriches our understanding of leadership practices, its con-
nection to Kotter’s model in ensuring organizational change sustainability has yet to be
extensively explored. Research that bridges the two concepts can offer valuable insights
into the practical application of LAP within change management initiatives. By integrating
LAP principles with Kotter’s model, organizations can create a more comprehensive and
adaptable approach to changing leadership.
According to the literature, the mainstream of the research has investigated the con-
nection between leadership traits, behaviors, skills, or styles and organizational change
from a broad and general viewpoint. Furthermore, none of the studies on change models
were empirically conducted from a practical perspective, aligning the results with the
concept of leadership-as-practice (LAP). Accordingly, this study investigates the theoretical
and empirical association between the Kotter eight-step change model, transformational
leadership, and transactional leadership from a LAP perspective.

3. Hypotheses and Research Conceptual Model

3.1. Leadership Style at the First Change Stage
Transformational leaders see the future and set the vision by using their imagina-
tion [61]. Furthermore, transformational leaders have a good relationship with cognitive
thinking and behavioral coping [62]. To encourage and persuade workers to understand
the necessity of change, a sense of urgency is required [28].
By building trust and emotional attractiveness, role model leaders may inspire employ-
ees with a sense of purpose and convince them of a brighter future through IIA/IIB. The IS
pillar in this case generates consciousness, thinking, and imagination, particularly in terms
of conceiving, comprehending, and visualizing issues and their solutions; however, we
found no relationship between the IM and IC pillars at this stage of change implementation.
Based on this assumption, we hypothesize:

H1. A transformational leadership style contributes positively to the sense of urgency step of
the KCM.

Additionally, we also developed the following sub-hypotheses with respect to this stage:

H1A. Attributed idealized influence contributes positively to the sense of urgency stage of the KCM.

H1B. Behavioral idealized influence contributes positively to the sense of urgency step of the KCM.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 6 of 34

H1C. Individual consideration does not contribute to the sense of urgency step of the KCM.

H1D. Inspirational motivation does not contribute to the sense of urgency step of the KCM.

H1E. Intellectual stimulation contributes positively to the sense of urgency step of the KCM.

In terms of the transactional leadership style, Nass [43] stated that CR, like goal-
path theory, may lay the groundwork for initiating structure. Antonakis and House [63]
suggested that instrumental leader variables have an impact on more than just contingent
reward. We argue that CR is favorably connected to SU. Based on this investigation,
we hypothesize:

H2. The transactional leadership style contributes positively to the sense of urgency step
of the KCM.

Additionally, we also developed the following sub-hypotheses with respect to this step:

H2A. Contingent reward contributes positively to the sense of urgency step of the KCM.

H2B. Management by expectations does not contribute to the sense of urgency step of the KCM.

3.2. Leadership Style at the Second Change Stage

Establishing responsibilities for tasks that are personally meaningful in a dynamic
environment demands that leaders who manage the communication process ask the ap-
propriate questions and involve the right individuals [64]. According to Kotter [1], the
powerful coalition group that drives the transformation should possess the knowledge,
abilities, expertise, and skills to keep the momentum and urgency going. Flawed members
of the group are identified and are usually provided with early support to help them
narrow or bridge the gap. Thus, IIA/IIB influence can provide pride in being a member of
a change group with a common shared goal and vision. In order to attain the group’s goal,
IM practices generate excitement and foster team spirit. IS emphasizes finding solutions to
difficulties relating to the group’s common tasks and responsibilities, whereas IC includes
assisting and training team members. Based on this assumption, we hypothesize:

H3. The transformational leadership style contributes positively to the creating a powerful coalition
step in the KCM.

Additionally, we also developed the following sub-hypotheses with respect to this step:

H3A. Attributed idealized influence contributes positively to the creating a powerful coalition step
of the KCM.

H3B. Behavioral idealized influence contributes positively to the creating a powerful coalition step
of the KCM.

H3C. Individual considerations contribute positively to the creating a powerful coalition step of
the KCM.

H3D. Inspirational motivation contributes positively to the creating a powerful coalition step of
the KCM.

H3E. Intellectual stimulation does not contribute to the creating a powerful coalition step of
the KCM.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 7 of 34

According to Kotter [1], change leaders must constantly monitor and correct deviations
in order to execute change; this might be aided by MBEA, particularly on a group level.
Despite this, based on our view, there is no evidence of a connection between CR and the
formation of a PC in the literature. Accordingly, we develop the following hypothesis:

H4. The transactional leadership style contributes positively to the creating a powerful coalition
step of the KCM.

Additionally, we also developed the following sub-hypotheses with respect to this step:

H4A. Active management by expectations positively contributes to the creating a powerful coalition
step of the KCM.

H4B. Contingent rewards do not contribute to the creating a powerful coalition step of the KCM.

3.3. Leadership Style at the Third Change Stage

To be endorsed, the future vision should be practical, clear, motivating, and in-
clude stakeholders’ objectives. It should facilitate transformation and decision-making [1].
Through IIA/B and IM, the organization may gain collective strength and pride in addi-
tion to working toward interesting objectives. When it comes to vision, IC is critical for
detecting coalition group concerns and problems, ambitions, and requirements, whereas IS
encourages inventive thinking when it comes to creating new visions and objectives. Thus,
we predict that:

H5. The transformational leadership style contributes positively to the developing vision step in
the KCM.

Additionally, we also developed the following sub-hypotheses with respect to this step:

H5A. Attributed idealized influence contributes positively to the creating vision step of the KCM.

H5B. Behavioral idealized influence contributes positively to the creating vision step of the KCM.

H5C. Individual considerations contribute positively to the creating vision step of the KCM.

H5D. Inspirational motivation contributes positively to the creating vision step of the KCM.

H5E. Intellectual stimulation contributes positively to the creating vision step of the KCM.

Indeed, when it comes to transactional leadership style pillars, MBEA and CR are
unlikely to play a crucial role at this step, as they are mostly based on creative endeavor.
Accordingly, we hypothesize:

H6. The transactional leadership style does not contribute to the developing vision step of the KCM.

Additionally, we developed the following sub-hypotheses:

H6A. Active management by expectations does not contribute to the creating vision step
of the KCM.

H6B. Contingent rewards do not contribute to the creating vision step of the KCM.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 8 of 34

3.4. Leadership Style at the Fourth Change Stage

Some employees still have issues that need to be addressed at this step. The role of the
coalition leader is to effectively execute and convey the new vision so that it is understood
and accepted; such activities seek to increase staff commitment to attaining it [15,29].
Employees will mimic the activities of powerful coalited leaders since they are viewed
as role models who have gained the confidence and trust of their followers through IIA
and IIB. Through IC, leaders should discuss their employees’ concerns and fears honestly
and openly. While reliant on IM and IS, leaders may exemplify confidence and boost
inventiveness to go beyond and above expectations, in order to accomplish their ambitious
communicated targets. With respect to this discussion, we drew the following hypothesis:

H7. The transformational leadership style contributes positively to the communicating vision step
in the KCM.

Additionally, we also developed the following sub-hypotheses with respect to this step:

H7A. Attributed idealized influence contributes positively to the communicating vision step of
the KCM.

H7B. Behavioral idealized influence contributes positively to the communicating vision step of
the KCM.

H7C. Individual considerations contribute positively to the communicating vision step of the KCM.

H7D. Inspirational motivation contributes positively to the communicating vision step of the KCM.

H7E. Intellectual stimulation contributes positively to the communicating vision step of the KCM.

Employees that do well in meeting the communicated criteria can be offered a CR in

exchange. Using MBEA, the leader may always keep an eye on any deviations at this step
and take the necessary action. Accordingly, we predict the following:

H8. The transactional leadership style contributes positively to the communicating vision step of
the KCM.

Additionally, we developed the following sub-hypotheses:

H8A. Active management by expectations contributes positively to the communicating vision step
of the KCM.

H8B. Contingent rewards contribute positively to the communicating vision step of the KCM.

3.5. Leadership Style at the Fifth Change Stage

To ensure successful change implementation at this step, coalition leaders should
address and remove obstacles to change such as job descriptions, organizational structure,
hierarchy and reporting systems, employees’ knowledge, abilities, and skills to carry out
the tasks, and troublesome supervisors who continue to be resistant to change due to
misconceptions about it, a lack of tolerance, and the belief that it will have little impact on
the organization [65].
Transformational leadership fosters innovation [66]. Through IIA/B, leaders may
inspire more confidence and enthusiasm among all staff members to encourage them to
embrace the change; they may use IS to promote creativity in order to overcome structural
and reporting obstacles; leaders can also rely on IM to bolster their self-assurance and
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 9 of 34

sense of direction; and they may use IC to address specific concerns, fears, and problems
connected to work activities. With respect to this review, we hypothesize the following:

H9. The transformational leadership style contributes positively to the removing obstacles step in
the KCM.

Additionally, we also developed the following sub-hypotheses with respect to this step:

H9A. Attributed idealized influence contributes positively to the removing obstacles step of
the KCM.

H9B. Behavioral idealized influence contributes positively to the removing obstacles step of
the KCM.

H9C. Individual considerations contribute positively to the removing obstacles step of the KCM.

H9D. Inspirational motivation contributes positively to the removing obstacles step of the KCM.

H9E. Intellectual stimulation contributes positively to the removing obstacles step of the KCM.

As for the TRLS pillars, leaders may also rely on MBEA to address job-related activities
and provide support when needed. Kotter [15] further noted that compensation and
incentive programs may also be a change barrier; thus, providing CR can overcome this
change barrier. Relating to this preview, we provide the following hypothesis:

H10. The transactional leadership style contributes positively to the removing obstacles step of
the KCM.

Additionally, we developed the following sub-hypotheses:

H10A. Active management by expectations contributes positively to the removing obstacles step of
the KCM.

H10B. Contingent rewards contribute positively to the removing obstacles step of the KCM.

3.6. Leadership Style at the Sixth Change Stage

Short-term achievements demonstrate a well-considered goal, appropriate judgments,
and organizational improvements. They will also instill hope, inspire followers, and
maintain a sense of urgency. From a different vantage point, they could also turn skeptics
into active participants [29]. Due to the satisfaction of reaching objectives, attributed
and behaviorally idealized influence would bolster the leader, and the guiding coalition
would obtain greater authority, trust, and credibility. Inspirational motivation would
be triggered to support the ongoing change. Moreover, the leaders should also utilize
individual considerations and intellectual stimulation to keep track of new change-makers.
Accordingly, we develop the following hypothesis:

H11. The transformational leadership style contributes positively to the creating short-term wins
step in the KCM.

Additionally, we also developed the following sub-hypotheses with respect to this step:

H11A. Attributed idealized influence contributes positively to the creating short-term wins step
of the KCM.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 10 of 34

H11B. Behavioral idealized influence contributes positively to the creating short-term wins step of
the KCM.

H11C. Intellectual stimulation contributes positively to the creating short-term wins step of
the KCM.

H11D. Inspirational motivation contributes positively to the creating short-term wins step of
the KCM.

H11E. Individual considerations contribute positively to the creating short-term wins step of
the KCM.

At this step, positive feedback and prizes are given to acknowledge and inspire change
agents [15], which may be accomplished through CR. Based on this, we hypothesize
the following:

H12. The transactional leadership style contributes positively to the creating short-term wins step
of the KCM.

Additionally, we developed the following sub-hypotheses:

H12A. Active management by expectations contributes positively to the creating short-term wins
step of the KCM.

H12B. Contingent rewards contribute positively to the creating short-term wins step of the KCM.

3.7. Leadership Style at the Seventh Change Stage

Leaders sustain momentum and generate new objectives with emerging change con-
tributors by reviewing processes that worked well and those that require refinement after
each change step [15]. Based on what change leaders have accomplished in terms of follow-
ers’ optimism, trust, and commitment to achieve objectives, we assume that they should
employ both TFLS and TRLS to solidify and bolster success, establish new goals, and gar-
nering wider support from change actors to achieve the comprehensive new vision. Thus,
with respect to transformational leadership style, we develop the following hypothesis and
sub-hypotheses:

H13. The transformational leadership style contributes positively to the building on change step in
the KCM, whereas:

H13A. Attributed idealized influence contributes positively to the building on change step of
the KCM.

H13B. Behavioral idealized influence contributes positively to the building on change step of
the KCM.

H13C. Individual considerations contribute positively to the building on change step of the KCM.

H13D. Inspirational motivation contributes positively to the building on change step of the KCM.

H13E. Intellectual stimulation contributes positively to the building on change step of the KCM.

In terms of the transactional leadership style, the following hypothesis and sub-
hypotheses were developed:
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 11 of 34

H14. The transactional leadership style contributes positively to the building on change step of the
KCM, whereas:

H14A. Active management by expectations contributes positively to the building on change step of
the KCM.

H14B. Contingent rewards contribute positively to the building on change step of the KCM.

3.8. Leadership Style at the Last Change Stage

Studies by Springer and Tipu, Ryan, and Fantazy [67,68] found that a transformational
style of leadership is successful in altering organizational culture. Change will not be
sustainable until new behaviors and practices become ingrained in the organization’s
culture [69]. In this case, the activities of leaders should be focused on sharing new
principles and tales of successful change, as well as strengthening team spirit and honoring
change coalition leaders; TFLS may be used to implement such practices [15]. Based on this
assumption, we developed the following hypothesis and sub-hypotheses:

H15. The transformational leadership style contributes positively to the anchoring approaches in
culture step in the KCM, whereas:

H15A. Attributed idealized influence contributes positively to the anchoring approaches in culture
step of the KCM.

H15B. Behavioral idealized influence contributes positively to the anchoring approaches in culture
step of the KCM.

H15C. Individual considerations contribute positively to the anchoring approaches in culture step
of the KCM.

H15D. Inspirational motivation contributes positively to the anchoring approaches in culture step
of the KCM.

H15E. Intellectual stimulation contributes positively to the anchoring approaches in culture step of
the KCM.

In order to ingrain and sustain change, Kotter [4] advised that it be reinforced via
rewards and recognitions and that leaders and steering coalitions continuously evaluate
workers’ attitudes and practices, which is considered a characteristic of transactional
leadership style. Thus, we hypothesize:

H16. The transactional leadership style contributes positively to the anchoring approaches in
culture step of the KCM, whereas:

H16A. MBEA contributes positively to the anchoring approaches in culture step of the KCM.

H16B. CR contributes positively to the anchoring approaches in culture step of the KCM.

The following research model, which incorporates the discussed leadership styles and
the Kotter eight-step change model, was developed to study the main two hypotheses
listed below, based on the premise of the research gap in light of the theoretical analyses
presented and the suggested hypotheses. This model is shown in Figure 1.

HTFLS : A positive correlation exists between the transformational leadership style and the Kotter
model of organizational change management.
 listed below, based on the premise of the research gap in light of the theoretical analyses
presented and the suggested hypotheses. This model is shown in Figure 1.

HTFLS: A positive correlation exists between the transformational leadership style and the Kotter
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 12 of 34
model of organizational change management.

HTRLS: A positive correlation exists between the transactional leadership style and the Kotter model
TRLS : A positive
Horganizational
of correlation
change exists between the transactional leadership style and the Kotter model
management.
of organizational change management.

Figure 1. Conceptualized model.

Figure 1. Conceptualized model.
4. Methodology
The study was conducted in Lebanon, an emerging nation that fulfills the criteria
examined in this study. Lebanon is seen as an emerging economy that experiences a sub-
stantial outflow of highly skilled individuals and hosts over a million Syrian refugees [70].
The current situation in Lebanon is reminiscent of the events that occurred in 1990 due to
the civil war, but with more severe and deteriorating aspects. Alongside the repercussions
of the epidemic, the economic turmoil in Lebanon that commenced in October 2019 has
necessitated that local organizations implement labor downsizing, salary reductions, and
decreased working hours. Due to the significant devaluation of the Lebanese pound, this
has exceeded 98%. For this reason, the government of Lebanon has discontinued subsidies
for a significant portion of goods and services on the market. These conditions have had an
adverse effect on the Lebanese market and community well-being. While some investors
perceived these environmental conditions as a peril and have chosen to permanently depart
the country and cease operations, others have responded in a contrasting manner. They
viewed the adverse economic circumstances as a chance to alter their organization’s strate-
gies by several means, such as restructuring, product line changes, becoming entrepreneurs,
and engaging in international business activities, taking into consideration the ecosystem
that fosters the alternation of their strategy [71,72].
To guarantee the consistency of the sample, two steps of probabilistic cluster sampling
were used. According to the sampling criteria established by [73], our sample size is
385 participants, as indicated in Table 1. Every province in Lebanon was considered to be a
cluster, with sub-clusters exhibiting heterogeneity and cluster homogeneity throughout the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 13 of 34

whole population. To reflect the sample size, random participants were chosen from SMEs
experiencing change within sub-clusters.

Table 1. Sample Size Selection.

Province Population % Sample Size

Mount Lebanon 1,508,720 38.08 147
North Lebanon 816,790.00 20.6 80
South Lebanon 724,646 18.29 70
Bekaa 533,201 13.45 50
Beirut 378,464 9.5 37
Total 3,961,821.00 100% 385
Confidence level 95%—margin of error 5%—0.05 significance level.

To substantiate the principles of the leadership-as-practice (LAP) theory, empirical data

was meticulously gathered from leaders within small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
who exemplify practical leadership attributes and have traversed practical leadership
stages firsthand.
Leadership was evaluated using the MLQ (5x) subordinate rating [74]. This tool
provides 36 statements for TFLS and TRLS measurements. Several studies have evaluated
the validity and reliability of this measurement tool, including those by Avolio, Bass and
Jung and Rowold and Heinitz [75,76]. As for the Kotter change model, we used a total
of 28 statements to evaluate each of the eight phases of change. Case studies, scholarly
articles, and field notes published by Kotter and Rathgeber and Kotter and Cohen [15,29]
served as the sources.
The questionnaire was divided into three sections. Four distinct statements were used
to test each component of TFLS in part one. In addition, MBEA and CR of TRLS were
measured using four distinct statements. Five anchor Likert scales were employed for these
statements, ranging from “not at all”, “once in a while”, “sometimes”, “fairly often”, and
“frequently” [74]. The Kotter change model was evaluated using 16 questions in the second
section of the questionnaire, with three different statements being used to evaluate each
step of the model. Respondents’ opinions on the tactics their leaders employed throughout
transformation were measured using a five-point Likert scale with five anchors ranging
from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
Clusters were represented by the Lebanese provinces, while sub-clusters were repre-
sented by districts and cities within the provinces. To find SMEs, secondary sources such
as Index Lebanon and the Yellow Pages were used. Face-to-face, email, or phone conversa-
tions were used to explain the objective of the study, confirm that they had experienced
change, and obtain permission to interview their workers. To preserve privacy and avoid
biases, a self-administered questionnaire approach was used. The pilot study conducted on
50 respondents yielded a way to fine-tune the questionnaire by having it translated into
Arabic and rephrasing certain phrases, ensuring the clarity and validity of the questions.
The data was then entered into Excel to be cleaned, followed by SmartPLS (V4) to run
partial least square (PLS) analysis.

5. Results
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to evaluate reflective measurements
without requiring the data distribution to be normal [77]. By using a two-step method,
leadership styles and Kotter change model-reflecting indicators were developed as second-
order constructs [78,79]. In order to test our assumptions and obtain an estimate for
the model, we extracted the latent variables from the regression results of (first) lower-
order constructs and imported them into a new dataset as indicators for (second) higher-
order constructs.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 14 of 34

In a reflective–reflective model, each of the indicator loadings, discriminant validity,

convergent validity, and composite reliability are reported [80]. To enhance model validity
and reliability, Hulland [81] recommends removing indicators with loadings below the
0.5 criterion. Yet, Wong [80] advised that if the indicator loading is less than 0.7, it should
be removed, but if deletion does not increase construct validity and reliability, it should
be avoided.
According to Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted [77], Gefen, Straub, and Boudreau [82],
and Wong [80], internal consistency may be attained when the construct indicator loads
and composite reliability meet a threshold value of 0.7. Further, average variance extracted
(AVE) was utilized to verify convergent validity; an acceptable AVE threshold is greater
than 0.5 [83].
Tables 2 and 3 depict indicator loads, composite reliability, Cronbach alpha, and
AVE for the Kotter change model leadership styles and first- and second-order models,
respectively. Loading values of model constructs varied from 0.7 to 0.9, with the lowest
loading value found for inspirational motivation “TF10 IM2” at 0.6. In addition, significance
at the 0.01 level in the t-test indicated that the measures accurately reflect the corresponding
constructs [80]. Convergent validity and reliability evidence was found, with the AVE
ranging from 0.6 to 0.70 [84]; furthermore, the value of Cronbach’s alpha for each individual
construct was more than 0.7, and the composite reliability for both the first- and second-
order levels ranged from 0.8 to 0.9.
Testing the value correlation of possibly overlapping constructs is one way to deter-
mine the extent to which items discriminate across constructs or measure distinct concepts.
Two methods can be followed to examine construct discriminant validity: The first is
to compute the Sqrt. of construct AVE, whereas the AVE Sqrt. value of each construct
load should be higher below and across other model constructs. The second is to com-
pute the cross-loading, where the indicators that constitute a construct ought to load in
their construct group higher than other construct indicator groups [77,83]. As depicted
in Tables 4 and 5, indicator loads pertain to the first- and second-order constructs that
meet the above criteria. Moreover, Table 6 proves that each construct has a Sqrt. of AVE
that is higher than its correlation with other constructs, thus indicating a high level of
discriminant validity.
SustainabilityConfidence
2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW t-values, R2 , F2 , standard β, and p-values were computed
intervals, to34
20 of

test the hypotheses using the PLS bootstrapping method, applying the recommended
5000 bootstraps from Hair et al. [86] and Chin [87]. As shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Research model results.

Figure 2. Research model results.

Table 7 summarizes the results for the proposed hypotheses H1, H3, H5, H7, H9, H11,
H13, and H15 and their corresponding sub-hypotheses that predict the relationship
between each of the transformational leadership styles and its pillars with each step of the
Kotter change management model. The results indicated that The transformational
leadership style (TFLS) contributes positively to the sense of urgency step as proposed by
H1, with β = 0.34, t(385) = 7.1, p < 0.01. The transformational leadership style contributes
positively to the creating a powerful coalition step as proposed by H3, with β = 0.46, t(385)
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 15 of 34

Table 2. Kotter model first- and second-order research model measurement.

Construct Indicator Loading a T-Value CA b CR c AVE d

KT1_SU1 0.845 40.02 **

Stage 1
KT2_SU2 0.894 80.31 ** 0.842 0.904 0.759
KT3_SU3 0.874 74.67 **
KT4_PC1 0.828 37.04 **

Stage 2
KT5_PC2 0.856 51.65 ** 0.772 0.868 0.687
KT6_PC3 0.802 30.97 **
KT7_VC1 0.795 36.11 **

Stage 3
Kotter Eight-Step Change Model

KT8_VC2 0.828 49.16 ** 0.732 0.849 0.652

KT9_VC3 0.798 35.48 **
KT10_CV1 0.793 37.83 **

Stage 4
KT11_CV2 0.865 64.38 ** 0.704 0.836 0.631
KT12_CV3 0.718 25.43 **
KT13_RO1 0.775 29.15 **
Stage 5

KT14_RO2 0.795 34.33 ** 0.719 0.842 0.641

KT15_RO3 0.83 39.98 **
KT16_CW1 0.864 55.67 **
Stage 6

KT17_CW2 0.824 47.88 ** 0.767 0.866 0.683

KT18_CW3 0.789 32.54 **
KT19_BC1 0.729 19.9 **
Stage 7

KT20_BC2 0.83 43.16 ** 0.71 0.838 0.633

KT21_BC3 0.824 50.34 **
KT22_AC1 0.842 52.43 **
Stage 8

KT23_AC2 0.874 67.38 ** 0.82 0.893 0.735

KT24_AC3 0.857 50.84 **
Second Order 0.87 0.904 0.545
a b c
Factor loading > 0.5 indicates indicator reliability [81]. CA: Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7 indicates indicator reliability [77]. CR: composite reliability > 0.7 [82]. d AVE: average variance
extracted > 0.5 indicated convergent validity [80,83,85]. ** p < 0.01.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 16 of 34

Table 3. Leadership styles first- and second-order research model measurement.

Construct Indicator Loading a T-Value CA b CR c AVE d

TF1_II1_B 0.734 24.14 **

Influence
Idealized

Behavior
TF2_II2_B 0.789 38.41 **
0.771 0.853 0.592
TF3_II3_B 0.791 34.43 **
TF4_II4_B 0.8 37.6 **
TF5_II5_A 0.842 56.16 **

Influence
Idealized

Attribute
TF6_II6_A 0.77 28.74 **
Transformational Leadership Style

0.784 0.861 0.607

TF7_II7_A 0.744 27.92 **
TF8_II8_A 0.716 17.00 **
TF9_IM1 0.801 35.74 **

Inspirational
Motivation
TF10_IM2 0.63 14.16 **
0.737 0.835 0.561
TF11_IM3 0.759 27.23 **
TF12_IM4 0.792 36.54 **
TF13_IS1 0.737 22.79 **
Stimulation
Intellectual

TF14_IS2 0.734 26.38 **

0.723 0.828 0.547
TF15_IS3 0.694 16.67 **
TF16_IS4 0.79 38.29 **
Consideration

TF17_IC1 0.71 21.06 **

Individual

TF18_IC2 0.737 22.09 **

0.758 0.846 0.579
TF19_IC3 0.792 35.16 **
TF20_IC4 0.8 41.16 **
Second order 0.901 0.927 0.717
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 17 of 34

Table 3. Cont.

Construct Indicator Loading a T-Value CA b CR c AVE d

TR1_CR1 0.784 35.79 **

Contingent
Transactional Leadership Style

Reward
TR2_CR2 0.755 21.87 **
0.775 0.856 0.597
TR3_CR3 0.784 23.29 **
TR4_CR4 0.767 21.08 **
TR5_ME1_A 0.783 35.29 **

Management

Expectation
TR6_ME2_A 0.725 30.24 **

By
0.711 0.822 0.536
TR7_ME3_A 0.72 37.18 **
TR8_ME4_A 0.697 30.08 **
Second order 0.79 0.82 0.708
aFactor loading > 0.5 indicates indicator reliability [81]. b CA: Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7 indicates indicator reliability [77]. c CR: composite reliability > 0.7 [82]. d AVE: average variance
extracted > 0.5 indicated convergent validity [80,83,85]. ** p < 0.01.

Table 4. First-Order Indicator Cross-Loadings.

Construct
Indicator
IIB IIA IM IS IC CR MBEA SU PC VC CV RO CW BC AC
TF1_II1_B 0.73 0.47 0.63 0.47 0.47 0.37 0.44 0.25 0.21 0.27 0.29 0.33 0.28 0.36 0.33
TF2_II2_B 0.79 0.55 0.56 0.42 0.50 0.35 0.40 0.27 0.29 0.35 0.37 0.34 0.35 0.45 0.47
TF3_II3_B 0.79 0.59 0.57 0.44 0.49 0.37 0.32 0.26 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.42 0.35
TF4_II4_B 0.80 0.61 0.56 0.56 0.69 0.51 0.42 0.18 0.37 0.29 0.33 0.34 0.30 0.37 0.34
TF5_II5_A 0.68 0.84 0.57 0.59 0.58 0.46 0.42 0.19 0.40 0.35 0.34 0.37 0.32 0.49 0.41
TF6_II6_A 0.54 0.77 0.44 0.47 0.48 0.41 0.31 0.14 0.36 0.35 0.33 0.35 0.24 0.46 0.33
TF7_II7_A 0.55 0.74 0.71 0.48 0.48 0.35 0.36 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.33 0.27
TF8_II8_A 0.39 0.72 0.37 0.30 0.39 0.28 0.23 0.12 0.34 0.17 0.20 0.28 0.17 0.27 0.26
TF9_IM1 0.58 0.53 0.80 0.44 0.45 0.34 0.33 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.23
TF10_IM2 0.39 0.39 0.65 0.34 0.29 0.24 0.38 0.16 0.11 0.20 0.18 0.28 0.15 0.27 0.25
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 18 of 34

Table 4. Cont.

Construct
Indicator
IIB IIA IM IS IC CR MBEA SU PC VC CV RO CW BC AC
TF11_IM3 0.70 0.47 0.76 0.44 0.48 0.33 0.43 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.32
TF12_IM4 0.53 0.64 0.79 0.47 0.49 0.35 0.39 0.22 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.30 0.24 0.32 0.30
TF13_IS1 0.38 0.44 0.38 0.74 0.52 0.42 0.54 0.28 0.31 0.28 0.37 0.42 0.29 0.42 0.34
TF14_IS2 0.44 0.45 0.47 0.73 0.37 0.46 0.29 0.26 0.18 0.25 0.23 0.29 0.18 0.26 0.23
TF15_IS3 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.69 0.41 0.36 0.45 0.19 0.27 0.33 0.28 0.33 0.29 0.43 0.36
TF16_IS4 0.53 0.50 0.42 0.79 0.50 0.42 0.38 0.20 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.29 0.43 0.32
TF17_IC1 0.42 0.38 0.40 0.50 0.71 0.58 0.46 0.22 0.32 0.23 0.30 0.35 0.23 0.31 0.32
TF18_IC2 0.48 0.44 0.41 0.34 0.74 0.39 0.30 0.24 0.32 0.17 0.26 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.24
TF19_IC3 0.63 0.53 0.45 0.46 0.79 0.52 0.37 0.24 0.37 0.30 0.33 0.32 0.27 0.32 0.30
TF20_IC4 0.57 0.56 0.49 0.54 0.80 0.51 0.40 0.25 0.38 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.37 0.33
TR1_CR1 0.45 0.39 0.29 0.39 0.55 0.78 0.24 0.17 0.25 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.25 0.23
TR2_CR2 0.36 0.42 0.34 0.39 0.46 0.76 0.39 0.27 0.35 0.24 0.31 0.24 0.31 0.25 0.21
TR3_CR3 0.42 0.37 0.31 0.47 0.59 0.78 0.39 0.24 0.25 0.21 0.27 0.28 0.19 0.27 0.27
TR4_CR4 0.38 0.34 0.37 0.49 0.43 0.77 0.26 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.16
TR5_ME1_A 0.38 0.34 0.42 0.57 0.43 0.32 0.78 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.28 0.36 0.25 0.36 0.38
TR6_ME2_A 0.47 0.32 0.48 0.37 0.38 0.25 0.73 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.25 0.21
TR7_ME3_A 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.28 0.26 0.29 0.72 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.25 0.28 0.20 0.21 0.21
TR8_ME4_A 0.37 0.38 0.35 0.41 0.38 0.35 0.70 0.12 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.23 0.18 0.26 0.24
KT1_SU1 0.24 0.18 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.85 0.25 0.29 0.30 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.22
KT2_SU2 0.29 0.19 0.23 0.28 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.89 0.29 0.33 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.33 0.34
KT3_SU3 0.26 0.20 0.24 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.87 0.24 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.29 0.31
KT4_PC1 0.40 0.40 0.29 0.33 0.40 0.32 0.29 0.20 0.83 0.27 0.30 0.41 0.53 0.38 0.37
KT5_PC2 0.25 0.31 0.17 0.29 0.31 0.22 0.21 0.28 0.86 0.30 0.37 0.35 0.43 0.37 0.29
KT6_PC3 0.34 0.36 0.24 0.28 0.44 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.80 0.24 0.34 0.30 0.38 0.39 0.26
KT7_VC1 0.33 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.26 0.23 0.33 0.24 0.80 0.59 0.37 0.33 0.45 0.39
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 19 of 34

Table 4. Cont.

Construct
Indicator
IIB IIA IM IS IC CR MBEA SU PC VC CV RO CW BC AC
KT8_VC2 0.36 0.34 0.30 0.35 0.28 0.21 0.20 0.25 0.34 0.83 0.49 0.36 0.34 0.52 0.37
KT9_VC3 0.29 0.22 0.21 0.30 0.21 0.16 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.80 0.61 0.33 0.32 0.42 0.36
KT10_CV1 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.34 0.37 0.29 0.28 0.37 0.28 0.55 0.79 0.45 0.39 0.51 0.44
KT11_CV2 0.38 0.31 0.26 0.38 0.39 0.29 0.35 0.34 0.43 0.51 0.87 0.42 0.54 0.54 0.46
KT12_CV3 0.26 0.18 0.17 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.21 0.27 0.25 0.62 0.72 0.38 0.39 0.46 0.42
KT13_RO1 0.39 0.36 0.33 0.40 0.36 0.29 0.38 0.25 0.38 0.34 0.42 0.78 0.36 0.39 0.51
KT14_RO2 0.36 0.33 0.33 0.37 0.30 0.20 0.29 0.34 0.30 0.39 0.41 0.80 0.40 0.54 0.48
KT15_RO3 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.35 0.30 0.23 0.25 0.30 0.36 0.32 0.43 0.83 0.47 0.42 0.41
KT16_CW1 0.35 0.28 0.29 0.33 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.39 0.40 0.35 0.52 0.43 0.86 0.50 0.46
KT17_CW2 0.30 0.23 0.21 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.38 0.39 0.50 0.46 0.82 0.52 0.44
KT18_CW3 0.34 0.31 0.27 0.26 0.32 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.59 0.28 0.36 0.38 0.79 0.38 0.38
KT19_BC1 0.33 0.34 0.29 0.35 0.25 0.20 0.19 0.12 0.30 0.49 0.52 0.35 0.41 0.73 0.40
KT20_BC2 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.43 0.30 0.19 0.32 0.25 0.38 0.44 0.49 0.44 0.48 0.83 0.66
KT21_BC3 0.48 0.48 0.36 0.46 0.41 0.32 0.36 0.42 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.55 0.47 0.82 0.52
KT22_AC1 0.40 0.35 0.32 0.35 0.34 0.26 0.34 0.26 0.29 0.40 0.47 0.45 0.38 0.47 0.84
KT23_AC2 0.44 0.39 0.33 0.38 0.33 0.22 0.33 0.27 0.34 0.40 0.47 0.51 0.45 0.71 0.87
KT24_AC3 0.38 0.34 0.30 0.36 0.34 0.26 0.26 0.34 0.33 0.40 0.49 0.53 0.49 0.53 0.86
IIB: idealize influence behavioral, IIA: idealized influence attributed, IM: inspirational motivation, IS: intellectual stimulation, IC: individual consideration, MBEA: management by
expectations active, CR: contingent rewards, SU: sense of urgency, PC: powerful coalition, VC: create a vision, CV: communicate vision, RO: remove obstacles, CW: create short term
wins, BC: build on change, AC: anchor changes in culture.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 20 of 34

Table 5. Second-Order Construct Item Cross-Loadings.

Transformational Transactional
Indicator Construct Kotter Change Model
Leadership Style Leadership Style
IIA 0.862 0.55 0.523
IIB 0.892 0.605 0.575
TF1 till TF20 IC 0.834 0.68 0.525
IS 0.809 0.665 0.557
IM 0.835 0.555 0.456
MBEA 0.591 0.859 0.448
TR1 till TR8
CR 0.63 0.823 0.403
SU 0.337 0.327 0.559
PC 0.458 0.388 0.651
VC 0.44 0.325 0.721
CV 0.46 0.403 0.815
KT1 till KT24
RO 0.496 0.405 0.76
CW 0.411 0.345 0.753
BC 0.56 0.402 0.833
AC 0.494 0.384 0.774

Table 7 summarizes the results for the proposed hypotheses H1, H3, H5, H7, H9, H11,
H13, and H15 and their corresponding sub-hypotheses that predict the relationship between
each of the transformational leadership styles and its pillars with each step of the Kotter
change management model. The results indicated that The transformational leadership
style (TFLS) contributes positively to the sense of urgency step as proposed by H1, with
β = 0.34, t(385) = 7.1, p < 0.01. The transformational leadership style contributes positively
to the creating a powerful coalition step as proposed by H3, with β = 0.46, t(385) = 9.5,
p < 0.01. Next, The TFLS also contributes positively to the developing vision step as
proposed by H5, with β = 0.44, t(385) = 9.8, p < 0.01. Additionally, The TFLS contributes
positively to the communicating vision step as proposed by H7, with β = 0.46, t(385) = 10.6,
p < 0.01. Additionally, The TFLS contributes positively to the removing obstacles step as
proposed by H9, with β = 0.49, t(385) = 12.4, p < 0.01. Next, The TFLS contributes positively
to the creating short-term wins step as proposed by H11, with β = 0.41, t(385) = 8.8, p < 0.01.
Additionally, The TFLS contributes positively to the building on change step as proposed
by H13, with β = 0.56, t(385) = 15, p < 0.01. Finally, The transformational leadership style
contributes positively to the anchoring approaches in culture step in the KCM as proposed
by H15, with β = 0.49, t(385) = 12.4, p < 0.01.
The first main hypothesis HTFLS proposed that a positive correlation exists between
the transformational leadership style and the Kotter model of organizational change man-
agement. The hypothesis was accepted, indicating a significant variance proportion of the
TFLS on the KCM, with R2 = 0.39, F(1,385) = 0.647, p < 0.01. As depicted in Table 8.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 21 of 34

Table 6. Discriminant Validity Fornell and Lacker Criteria.

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 Active Management by Expectations 0.73
2 Anchoring Approaches in Culture 0.36 0.86
3 Attributed Idealized Influence 0.44 0.42 0.77
4 Behavioral Idealized Influence 0.50 0.48 0.71 0.78
5 Build on Change 0.37 0.67 0.51 0.51 0.80
6 Communicate the Vision 0.36 0.55 0.36 0.43 0.64 0.79
7 Contingent Rewards 0.42 0.28 0.49 0.52 0.30 0.32 0.77
8 Create Short-Term Wins 0.29 0.51 0.33 0.40 0.57 0.56 0.29 0.83
9 Create a Vision 0.29 0.46 0.36 0.41 0.58 0.70 0.26 0.41 0.81
10 Individual Consideration 0.50 0.39 0.64 0.70 0.41 0.41 0.66 0.35 0.35 0.76
11 Inspirational Motivation 0.51 0.37 0.69 0.74 0.40 0.31 0.42 0.31 0.34 0.58 0.75
12 Intellectual Stimulation 0.56 0.42 0.62 0.61 0.52 0.42 0.56 0.35 0.40 0.61 0.57 0.74
13 Powerful Coalition 0.31 0.37 0.43 0.40 0.46 0.41 0.34 0.54 0.32 0.46 0.28 0.36 0.83
14 Remove Obstacles 0.38 0.58 0.41 0.43 0.57 0.52 0.30 0.51 0.44 0.40 0.39 0.46 0.43 0.80
15 Sense of Urgency 0.26 0.34 0.22 0.31 0.34 0.41 0.29 0.35 0.35 0.31 0.27 0.31 0.30 0.37 0.87
16 Kotter Change Model 0.74
17 Transactional Leadership Style Second Order Model Discriminant Validity 0.51 0.84
18 Transformational Leadership Style 0.63 0.72 0.85
The diagonal is the square root of the AVE of the latent variables and indicates the highest in any column or row.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 22 of 34

Table 9 summarizes the results for the proposed hypotheses H2, H4, H6, H8, H10,
H12, H14, and H16, and their corresponding sub-hypotheses that predict the relationship
between the TRLS and its pillars with each step of the Kotter change management model.
As the results showed, The transactional leadership style (TRLS) contributes positively to
the sense of urgency step of the KCM as proposed by H2, with β = 0.37, t(385) = 8.3, p < 0.01.
The TRLS contributes positively to creating a powerful coalition as proposed by H4, with
β = 0.38, t(385) = 8.2, p < 0.01. However, The TRLS showed a positive contribution opposite
to the proposed hypothesis H6, with β = 0.32, t(385) = 6.5, p < 0.01. With respect to H8, The
TRLS contributes positively to communicating vision with β = 0.40, t(385) = 9.04, p < 0.01.
As proposed by H10, The TRLS contributes positively to removing obstacles with β = 0.39,
t(385) = 9.2, p < 0.01. Additionally, The TRLS contributes positively to creating short-term
wins, as proposed by H12, with β = 0.34, t(385) = 7.42, p < 0.01. Next, transformational
leadership style contributes positively to anchoring approaches as proposed by H15, with
β = 0.39, t(385) = 8.7, p < 0.01. Finally, as proposed by H16, the transactional leadership
style contributes positively to the anchoring approaches in the culture step of the KCM,
with β = 0.32, t(385) = 7.1, p < 0.01.
With respect to the sub-hypotheses developed for the transactional leadership style
developed (see Table 9), the results indicated that H8A, H10A, and H16A were accepted
with p ≤ 0.01. Additionally, H4A, H14A, H12B, H14B, and H16B were also accepted with
p ≤ 0.05. However, H1A, H6A, H12A, H11A, H1B, H4B, H7B, H8B, and H10B, were rejected
for p > 0.05. The findings suggest that contingent rewards are crucial throughout the last
three steps of the change model, whereas active management by expectation positively
contributes to forming coalitions, removing obstacles, building on change, and anchoring
approaches into the culture.
The second main hypothesis HTRLS proposes that a positive correlation exists between
the transactional leadership style and the Kotter model of organizational change manage-
ment. The hypothesis was accepted, indicating a significant variance proportion of the
TRLS on the KCM, with R2 = 0.25, F(1,385) = 0.258, p < 0.05. As depicted in Table 10.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 23 of 34

Table 7. Hypotheses Results (relationship between transformational leadership components and the Kotter change model stages).

IIA IIB IC IM IS Transformational Leadership Style

Hyp. Std. β T p Hyp. Std. β T p Hyp. Std. β T p Hyp. Std. β T p Hyp. Std. β T Value p Hyp. Std. β T F2 p
SU H1A 0.14 1.58 * 0.05 H1B 0.12 1.4 * 0.05 H1C 0.10 1.15 0.13 H1D 0.07 0.81 0.21 H1E 0.14 1.56 * 0.05 H1 0.34 7.1 ** 0.13 0.00
PC H3A 0.26 3.1 ** 0.00 H3B 0.10 1.3 * 0.04 H3C 0.25 3.1 ** 0.00 H3D 0.21 2.7 ** 0.00 H3E 0.02 0.35 0.36 H3 0.46 9.5 ** 0.26 0.00
VC H5A 0.04 0.73 0.23 H5B 0.20 2.3 ** 0.01 H5C 0.04 0.70 0.24 H5D 0.01 0.06 0.48 H5E 0.22 3.2 ** 0.00 H5 0.44 9.8 ** 0.24 0.00
CV H7A 0.03 0.45 0.33 H7B 0.24 2.9 ** 0.00 H7C 0.13 1.9 * 0.03 H7D 0.12 1.70 * 0.04 H7E 0.17 2.4 ** 0.01 H7 0.46 10.6 ** 0.26 0.00
RO H9A 0.07 0.93 0.18 H9B 0.13 1.5 * 0.05 H9C 0.12 2.0 ** 0.02 H9D 0.03 0.39 0.35 H9E 0.24 3.5 ** 0.00 H9 0.49 12.4 ** 0.32 0.00
CW H11A 0.01 0.20 0.42 H11B 0.25 2.6 ** 0.01 H11C 0.05 0.68 0.25 H11D 0.11 1.70 * 0.04 H11E 0.12 1.71 * 0.04 H11 0.41 8.8 ** 0.20 0.00
BC H13A 0.25 3.7 ** 0.00 H13B 0.29 3.9 ** 0.00 H13C 0.04 0.55 0.29 H13D 0.14 2.2 ** 0.01 H13E 0.29 4.6 ** 0.00 H13 0.56 15 ** 0.45 0.00
AC H15A 0.11 1.5 * 0.05 H15B 0.30 3.4 ** 0.00 H15C 0.20 2.3 ** 0.02 H15D 0.09 1.04 0.15 H15E 0.16 2.7 ** 0.00 H15 0.49 12.4 ** 0.32 0.00
** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 of the two-tailed test with 0.05 sig. level. Legend: IIB: idealize influence behavioral, IIA: idealized influence attributed, IM: inspirational motivation, IS: intellectual
stimulation, IC: individual consideration, MBEA: management by expectations active, CR: contingent rewards, SU: sense of urgency, PC: powerful coalition, VC: create a vision,
CV: communicate vision, RO: remove obstacles, CW: create short term wins, BC: build on change, AC: anchor changes in culture.

Table 8. HTFLS Hypothesis Results (relationship between the transformational leadership style and the Kotter change model process).

HTFLS : Transformational Leadership → Std. β Std. Error T-Value p Values Decision F2 2.5% CI LL 97.5% CI UL
Kotter Change Model 0.543 0.05 10.097 ** 0.00 Supported ** 0.647 0.44 0.65
** p < 0.01 of the two-tailed test with 0.05 sig. level.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 24 of 34

Table 9. Hypotheses Results (relationship between transactional leadership components and the Kotter change model stages).

MBA CR Transactional Leadership Style

Hyp. Std. β T Value p Values Hyp. Std. β T Value p Values Hyp. Std. β T Value F2 p Values
SU H1A 0.063 1.001 0.159 H1B 0.094 1.256 0.105 H2 0.376 8.3 ** 0.12 0.00
PC H4A 0.104 1.617 * 0.050 H4B 0.017 0.185 0.427 H4 0.388 8.2 ** 0.18 0.00
VC H6A 0.027 0.426 0.335 H7B 0.032 0.517 0.303 H6 0.324 6.5 ** 0.12 0.00
CV H8A 0.124 2.24 ** 0.013 H8B 0.001 0.038 0.485 H8 0.401 9.04 ** 0.19 0.00
RO H10A 0.119 2.16 ** 0.015 H10B 0.05 0.901 0.184 H10 0.398 9.2 * 0.19 0.00
CW H12A 0.067 1.04 0.149 H12B 0.076 1.47 * 0.046 H12 0.344 7.42 ** 0.14 0.00
BC H14A 0.073 1.44 * 0.045 H14B 0.093 1.59 * 0.049 H14 0.398 8.7 ** 0.19 0.00
AC H16A 0.113 2.12 ** 0.017 H16B 0.067 1.05 * 0.050 H16 0.327 7.1 ** 0.17 0.00
** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 of the two-tailed test with a 0.05 sig. level.

Table 10. HTRLS Hypothesis Results (relationship between transactional leadership style and the Kotter change model process).

HTRLS : Transactional Style -> Kotter Std. β Std. Error T-Value p Values Decision F2 2.5% CI LL 97.5% CI UL
Change Model 0.119 0.05 2.006 * 0.045 Supported * 0.258 0.013 0.227
* p < 0.05 at Two tailed test with 0.05 Sig. Level.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 25 of 34

6. Discussion
The literature review identified a pertinent research gap due to a dearth of studies
examining leadership and strategic change management approaches. While prior research
has examined the correlation between transformational leadership and change concepts,
little attention has been paid to the various change models that might be implemented
during the change process. Furthermore, within the context of the leadership-as-practice
(LAP) theory, this research seeks to delve deeper into the interplay between leadership
styles and strategic change models, aligning the discussion with the LAP perspective [23].
This research advances leadership and change management theory. First, it provides a
theoretical linkage between Kotter’s change model and the transactional and transforma-
tional leadership styles, aligning the former with the LAP perspective. Second, Kotter and
Cohen [15] emphasized transformational leadership in change execution, a viewpoint that
resonates with the LAP approach to leadership, where leadership is recognized as a fluid
and evolving process shaped by ongoing interactions and experiences. Despite multiple
studies showing that the Kotter change management approach is effective, none of the
earlier studies hypothesized and investigated this relationship within the LAP framework.
This study aims to address this gap by constructing a model to evaluate and examine the
link between both the transformational and transactional leadership styles and pillars with
each Kotter change management implementation step, thereby bridging the gap between
Kotter change management and practice.
As a result, at the first step, we proposed that intellectual stimulation, idealized
influence (attributed and behavioral), and individual consideration of transformational
leadership style pillars had an impact on a sense of urgency. The findings backed up our
point of view. The data also backed up our claims that there is no link between the TFLS’s
inspirational motivation and individual consideration pillars. As for the transactional style,
according to Bass and Stogdill [88], in order to establish a change structure, contingent
rewards are essential, while Antonakis and House [63] found that monitoring and feedback
were more beneficial than contingent incentives. Our findings concluded that no link exists
between contingent rewards and the active management by expectations pillars. In accor-
dance with LAP, from the leadership-as-practice perspective, contingent rewards involve
incentivizing performance through external motivators like bonuses. Active management
centers on engaging guidance and communication. These pillars are distinct, as contin-
gent rewards rely on extrinsic incentives, while active management emphasizes intrinsic
engagement. The former may undermine the genuine commitment fostered by the latter.
Leadership as practice highlights the need for authentic connections and shared meaning,
contrasting with the transactional nature of contingent rewards. Thus, no intrinsic link
exists between these pillars, reflecting their divergent approaches to effective leadership.
In the second step, we highlighted leadership style and coalition building, and we
proposed that inspirational motivation, individual consideration, and idealized influence
are necessary. This investigation validated our hypothesis that the ascribed pillars create a
potent coalition. As expected, there was no correlation between intellectual stimulation
and coalition building. As for the TFLS, our findings corroborated our hypothesis that
MBEA is necessary to track worker behavior at this stage. Furthermore, there was no
correlation between forming coalitions and contingent rewards. These findings corroborate
those of Holten and Brenner [89] and demonstrate that the TRLS would facilitate change
engagement, a factor that, according to Kotter’s theory, is crucial for success. Thus, in
the second step, where leadership style and coalition building take center stage, from a
leadership-as-practice perspective, MBEA is essential for monitoring worker behavior. It
involves intervening only when deviations from expected norms occur. This approach pre-
serves autonomy and encourages self-direction, aligning with the principle of empowering
leadership. MBEA enables leaders to focus on strategic guidance rather than micromanage-
ment, fostering a culture of responsibility and initiative for sustainable development [90].
By addressing exceptions, leaders ensure standards are met while allowing flexibility and
innovation to flourish, reinforcing the core ethos of leadership as practice.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 26 of 34

We expected that all the TFLS pillars would be useful while creating vision in the
third step. In general, the findings did not support all our proposed hypotheses, with
the exception of a substantial and strong link between IIB, IS, and VC. We also succeeded
in proving that the MBEA and CR pillars of the TRLS are not linked to this step. Hence,
transitioning to the third step, where the creation of a compelling vision takes precedence,
the LAP approach offers a distinctive way through which to comprehend the utility of
the TFLS pillars. From a leadership-as-practice perspective, the MBEA and CR pillars of
the TRLS are not inherently linked to the third step of Kotter’s change model. In Kotter’s
model, the third step involves creating a clear and compelling vision for change. However,
MBEA and CR primarily focus on the operational aspects of leadership, such as monitoring
and rewarding performance. In contrast, the third step of Kotter’s model emphasizes the
importance of articulating a shared vision that inspires and guides individuals towards a
common goal. This requires fostering a sense of purpose, shared values, and emotional
connection—aspects that go beyond the transactional nature of MBEA and CR. Leadership-
as-practice underscores the need for holistic and authentic engagement, which may involve
more transformational leadership approaches, while MBEA and CR are better suited to
addressing specific performance and operational aspects rather than shaping a broader
vision for change.
In the fourth step, communicating the vision, we assumed all the TFLS pillars were
essential. The findings validated our assumption that successful communication of the
vision requires inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, behaviorally idealized
influence, and individual consideration. In terms of the TRLS, our findings reinforced
the requirement for MBEA; additionally, there was no link between contingent rewards
and this step. In other words, as we advance to the fourth step of the change process, the
link between the leadership-as-practice (LAP) approach and communicating the vision
becomes increasingly pronounced. LAP views leadership as a dynamic, socially constructed
practice shaped by interactions, emphasizing the role of leaders in effectively conveying
and reinforcing the change vision. In LAP, leaders’ actions hold paramount importance, and
communicating the vision aligns seamlessly with this perspective. Effective communication,
a core component of LAP, involves not only transmitting information but also embodying
the vision through actions and behaviors. This mirrors the idealized influence pillar of
transformational leadership, where leaders serve as role models, reinforcing the vision’s
authenticity and credibility. LAP underscores that communicating the vision is not a
passive exercise but an active practice where leaders engage with followers, fostering a
shared understanding and commitment to the change journey.
We proposed using inspiring motivation (IM), behavioral idealized influence (II/B),
intellectual stimulation (IS), and individual considerations (IC) to motivate non-change-
engaged employees while removing obstacles (RO) at the fifth step. IC, IS, IIB, and RO
were linked positively. The is no evidence linking IIA, IM, and this phase. Regarding the
TRLS, we anticipated MBEA could monitor employee behavior in accordance with the
given task and job description. The study found a favorable association between MBEA
and RO, but not with CR. Hence, in the context of the fifth step involving motivation and
obstacle removal, the leadership-as-practice (LAP) perspective offers valuable insights.
LAP’s core tenet of leadership as a dynamic, socially constructed practice aligns with
the use of inspiring motivation (IM), behavioral idealized influence (II/B), intellectual
stimulation (IS), and individual consideration (IC) to engage non-change-engaged employ-
ees and overcome obstacles. LAP emphasizes that effective leadership involves actively
modeling and inspiring change, which resonates with the application of IM and II/B in
transformational leadership. These pillars enable leaders to set examples and influence
employees by showcasing the benefits of change. Similarly, IS and IC, also from trans-
formational leadership, support LAP’s personalized approach by encouraging creative
problem-solving and addressing individual concerns, fostering a sense of ownership and
involvement. As leaders embrace LAP, they collaboratively tackle obstacles using IS and IC
to identify innovative solutions while engaging employees in the obstacle removal process,
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 27 of 34

since innovation and knowledge sharing are essential during change management [91].
This approach reflects LAP’s adaptable nature, as leaders tailor their actions to the specific
context and the needs of their team.
At the sixth step of the KCM, that is celebrating accomplishments, we argued that
leaders would win more trust via idealized influence as a result of apparent successes
that establish the foundations for additional support for change. Inspirational motivation
will inspire followers to work on future projects, and intellectually stimulated personnel
will think and behave differently. At this step, we found no link between individual
considerations and creating short-term wins. (CSTW). Empirically, some of our views
were supported. CW was related to II/B, IM, and IS. No significant relationship was
found between II/A, IC, and CSTW. While celebrating achievements, the guiding coalition
should be rewarded, and leaders should continuously offer performance feedback [92].
Accordingly, we postulated that CR is positively connected to CSTM. The study’s findings
confirmed this. No meaningful association was identified between MBEA and this step.
The concept of celebrating accomplishments within the context of the leadership-as-practice
(LAP) perspective encapsulates the dynamic and socially constructed nature of leadership.
LAP views leadership as an ongoing, interactive process that is shaped by interactions,
context, and shared meanings. When leaders celebrate accomplishments, they engage in a
practice that aligns with LAP’s emphasis on the active and observable aspects of leadership.
By recognizing and acknowledging achievements, leaders reinforce the change vision and
foster a sense of achievement and progress among followers, demonstrating the tangible
impact of their leadership actions.
In the seventh step, we discussed that leadership thrives when it is based on change;
therefore, leaders should employ most of the TFLS and TRLS pillars to make new changes.
The findings validated our hypothesis, in terms of the TFLS pillars; that there is a strong
positive link between IIA, IIB, IM, IS, and BC. In the case of the TRLS, the findings revealed
a substantial positive association between CR, MBEA, and the building on change step. The
substantial positive association that exists between contingent rewards (CR), management
by exception—active (MBEA), and the “building on change” step resonates deeply with
the principles of the leadership-as-practice (LAP) perspective. Within LAP, this association
reflects the dynamic and socially constructed nature of leadership practice, emphasizing
the active role of leaders in guiding and sustaining change initiatives. In LAP, the positive
link between CR, MBEA, and the “building on change” step underscores the practical
and contextually responsive approach of leadership practice. Leaders who embrace LAP
principles recognize the significance of utilizing rewards (CR) and active monitoring
(MBEA) to foster continuous improvement and adaptation during the change process.
This mirrors LAP’s view of leadership as a fluid and adaptable practice that responds to
evolving circumstances and challenges. Furthermore, the positive association between CR,
MBEA, and the “building on change” step aligns with LAP’s emphasis on leaders’ active
engagement and influence. Leaders, by employing CR and MBEA, demonstrate LAP’s core
tenet of leadership practice as an ongoing interaction that shapes organizational dynamics.
This approach empowers leaders to proactively guide their teams through the “building on
change” phase, maintaining momentum, and ensuring that the change initiative remains
effective and relevant. In essence, the connection between CR, MBEA, and the “building on
change” step within the LAP framework illustrates how leadership practice plays a pivotal
role in cultivating a culture of continuous improvement and adaptation. By integrating CR
and MBEA with LAP principles, leaders contribute to the dynamic and socially embedded
nature of leadership practice, driving successful change implementation and fostering a
culture of sustainable growth and innovation.
At the eighth step, Kotter [4] stressed the relevance of transformational leadership
in anchoring approaches to organization culture (AC). We expected the TFLS and IIA/B,
IC, and IS pillars to contribute to this phase. The study results corroborated recent studies
by Springer et al. [67] and Tipu, Ryan, and Fantazy [68] and our views. IIA/B, IC, IS,
and AC had a substantially favorable relationship to AC. While no empirical evidence
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 28 of 34

was found for IM, Kotter [4] also suggested using incentives, prizes, and promotions to
reinforce new norms and values. In addition, leaders should monitor the new processes to
keep them on track, practiced, and perpetuated. The findings confirmed our hypotheses.
MBEA and AC in culture have a favorable link, as does CR. The linkage between MBEA
and organization culture, as well as the positive connection between contingent rewards
(CR) and culture, hold significance within the leadership-as-practice (LAP) perspective. In
LAP, these associations reflect the dynamic and socially constructed nature of leadership
practice. The favorable link between MBEA and AC underscores LAP’s emphasis on
contextually responsive leadership, showcasing how leaders actively shape and reinforce
specific cultural attributes. Likewise, the positive relationship between CR and culture
aligns with LAP’s view of leadership as a practical and adaptable process, wherein leaders
strategically utilize incentives to align behaviors with shared values. In essence, MBEA and
CR exemplify how LAP principles manifest in leaders’ active influence on organizational
culture, highlighting the interactive and context-sensitive nature of leadership practice
within the broader organizational context.
In general, transformational leaders are better at executing change than transactional
leaders, the study found. HTFLS anticipated a medium influence of transformational
leadership on the Kotter change model, whereas HTRLS predicted a lower significant impact
for transactional leadership.
From a practical standpoint, this study offers insightful and thorough information
for leaders using the Kotter change management model to modify their transactional and
transformational leadership styles according to the transition step to ensure sustainable im-
plementation. For instance, when applying idealized influence behaviors in implementing
the eight stages of the Kotter change model, as the model results indicated, change leaders
are advised to leverage their charisma to mobilize their followers towards a common vision.
This can be achieved by attentively listening to their followers, commending individual
team members for their achievements, and assuming accountability when mistakes occur.
During these transitional stages, it is imperative for leaders to offer constructive feedback
to each individual member of the team. The success of leaders who discover innovative
solutions and forge new paths for their teams is mostly fueled by curiosity rather than
intelligence. Adding to this, it is crucial to be seen as trustworthy and respected role
models by all team members, while also promoting curiosity, practicing ethical behavior,
and effectively delivering messages with clarity and diplomacy to ensure effective and
sustainable change.
With respect to the inspirational motivation pillar of the transformational leadership
style that should be practiced when creating powerful coalitions, communicating the vision,
creating short-term wins, and building on change, it is advised that leaders at these stages
communicate in a positive, challenging, but yet realistic manner the efforts needed from the
team, the company’s mission and objectives, and the beneficial impact for the organization.
Leaders who underestimate or ignore the importance of jobs and the tasks related to them,
or fail to help individuals understand how their contributions fit into the overall goals,
may face challenges in inspiring their subordinates. For this, leaders ought to encourage
team members to fully embrace the vision by boosting morale, creating a sense of unity,
and implanting a shared objective. To do this, leaders’ communication styles need to be
optimally tailored to the needs of the team. Thus, leaders need to communicate simply and
concisely with an authoritative demeanor so that members can understand their vision.
This creates a sense of organization and coherence and makes it possible for members
to complete tasks without any confusion. To do this, communication should be defined
by simplicity. This approach creates a logical and transparent structure that makes it
possible for team members to carry out tasks without fear. Moreover, it is imperative for
leaders to have an optimistic attitude in order to energize and exude passion throughout
the processes.
The model results showed that intellectual stimulation behaviors are essential through-
out the Kotter model change stages, except when creating a powerful coalition. Leaders at
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 29 of 34

these change stages shall motivate their subordinates to think creatively and foster inno-
vation. Encouraging followers fosters the development of critical thinking and problem-
solving abilities, thus enhancing the overall performance of the group or organization.
Encouraging innovation means giving each team member a voice in decision-making and
encouraging a sense of importance and responsibility for the company’s overall success.
An essential aspect of this is that a leader should refrain from criticizing the beliefs or
opinions expressed by the members. Terminating ideas prematurely can foster an atmo-
sphere of suspicion, harm, and loss of trust. Consequently, leaders must delicately alter
the way in which followers engage in problem-solving and generate novel and inventive
approaches to accomplish their teams’ objectives. Leaders must acknowledge that there
are diverse approaches to accomplishing a goal and that there is no conventional route to
fostering creativity.
With respect to the fourth pillar of the transformational leadership style, namely in-
dividualized consideration, which shall be practiced when creating a powerful coalition,
communicating the vision, removing obstacles, building on change, and anchoring change
in the organization’s culture, change leaders are advised to facilitate the personal and pro-
fessional development of team members within a conducive and supportive atmosphere
and strive to understand their goals and dreams, their likes and dislikes when it comes to
their jobs, and their areas of interest. Emotional intelligence is necessary for effectively in-
volving individuals. Emotional intelligence encompasses the display of authentic empathy,
understanding, and addressing the needs of individuals, and fostering their continuous
personal development. As a result, emotionally intelligent leaders build strong bonds
based on trust with their teams. At these change stages, leaders could also play the mentor
role by demonstrating a willingness and openness to attentively listen to the concerns of
their followers. This entails acknowledging and appreciating the incentives, aspirations,
and requirements of each individual member. Once leaders understand the underlying
motivation that drives an individual, they can then offer tailored training opportunities.
Leaders should also adjust transactional leadership practices when implementing the
Kotter change model. First, leaders should provide the promised rewards in exchange for
the team’s efforts at the last three stages of the change model. While creating powerful coali-
tions, communicating the vision, removing obstacles, building on change, and anchoring
change in culture, leaders should develop and practice active management by expectation
behaviors. For instance, leaders at all organization levels ought to report to higher levels
and change planners any deviation in performance that can affect and detrain change
efforts, intervene and take corrective actions in the most efficient manner possible. Thus,
leaders should be able to delegate authorities to lower levels to take actions on minor mat-
ters and leave the strategies for fine tuning and major decisions centralized. Accordingly,
we advise leaders to develop delegation of authority skills for themselves. They should
also follow a systematic approach that is based on certain steps to keep track of change
process deviations and take decisions. Leaders can also maintain professionalism and
provide suitable training, such as problem analysis and teamwork skills, for the concerned
employees to be able to handle problems and take efficient decisions, ensuring an optimum
level of productivity. These actions can lead to high standards with increased potential to
achieve sustainable change.
Based on the findings, Figure 3 depicts the relative importance of the transforma-
tional and transactional leadership styles and their pillars in relation to the Kotter change
model step.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 29 of 34

Based on the findings, Figure 3 depicts the relative importance of the

Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 transformational and transactional leadership styles and their pillars in relation 30
toofthe
34
Kotter change model step.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. The
The relative
relative importance
importance of
of each
each leadership
leadership style
style component
component in
inthe
thechange
change process.
process.

7.
7. Conclusions
Conclusions
This
This paper
paperconstructs
constructs a theoretical modelmodel
a theoretical to investigate the effectthe
to investigate of the transforma-
effect of the
tional
transformational and transactional leadership styles and their pillars on each model
and transactional leadership styles and their pillars on each Kotter change Kotter
implementation stage.
change model implementation stage.
Previous
Previous research
researchhas has demonstrated
demonstrated aa correlation
correlation between
between employee
employee commitment
commitment to to
change and transformational leadership styles [18–20]. Other
change and transformational leadership styles [18–20]. Other studies have linked studies have linked transfor-
mational leadership
transformational or leadership
leadership skills with skills
or leadership effective
withchange management
effective [17,21,50,93].
change management
Kakucha
[17,21,50,93]. Kakucha [52] found that the leader’s charisma is significant duringresearch
[52] found that the leader’s charisma is significant during change. Our change.
showed that both
Our research showedthe that
transformational and transactional
both the transformational leadership styles,
and transactional alongstyles,
leadership with
their pillars, including charisma, had positive correlations with
along with their pillars, including charisma, had positive correlations with changechange management when
employing
management a planned Kotter model
when employing changeKotter
a planned strategy.
modelThese results
change contradict
strategy. Thesethose of
results
der Voet [51], who found that transformational leadership contributes
contradict those of der Voet [51], who found that transformational leadership contributes little to planned
change
little to approaches.
planned change Incorporating
approaches. theIncorporating
findings of Seijts
the and Gandz
findings of [23],
Seijtswho
andtheoretically
Gandz [23],
delineated
who theoretically delineated the leader character dimension throughout theprocesses,
the leader character dimension throughout the Kotter change this
Kotter change
research contributed to leadership research by filling the current research
processes, this research contributed to leadership research by filling the current research gap between the
pillars of the transformational and transactional leadership styles and the Kotter change
gap between the pillars of the transformational and transactional leadership styles and the
model by providing a theoretical and valid empirical investigation.
Kotter change model by providing a theoretical and valid empirical investigation.
This study’s insights align closely with the principles of the leadership-as-practice
This study’s insights align closely with the principles of the leadership-as-practice
(LAP) perspective. LAP views leadership as an active and socially constructed practice
(LAP) perspective. LAP views leadership as an active and socially constructed practice
that is responsive to organizational dynamics. The positive associations observed between
that is responsive to organizational dynamics. The positive associations observed between
transformational and transactional leadership styles and their pillars, as well as the Kotter
transformational and transactional leadership styles and their pillars, as well as the Kotter
change model stages, reflect LAP’s emphasis on leadership as an ongoing and contextually
change model stages, reflect LAP’s emphasis on leadership as an ongoing and
sensitive interaction. The findings highlight how leaders, within the LAP framework,
contextually sensitive interaction. The findings highlight how leaders, within the LAP
navigate change implementation by dynamically deploying different leadership styles and
framework, navigate change implementation by dynamically deploying different
engaging in active practices tailored to the specific stages of the change process. This correla-
leadership styles and engaging in active practices tailored to the specific stages of the
tion reaffirms LAP’s core principles and underscores the relevance of adaptable leadership
practices in effectively guiding organizational change efforts. Thus, while scholars have
described leadership-as-practice as a framework that shifts leadership from focusing on an
individualistic approach to a collective and context-dependent perspective [54], especially
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 31 of 34

when pushing organizations towards new practices [55], our research goes beyond these
results to conclude that leadership and leadership practices are the basic blocks needed to
ensure sustainable and continued change throughout the change processes, starting from
creating the urgency of change, communicating visions, and building team cohesiveness
training, delegating authorities, and ending up with change reinforcement.
The findings of this study have to be seen in the light of some limitations. As most
of the organizations operating in Lebanon are considered small to medium enterprises,
the sample size covered these enterprises that are operating in the service industry sec-
tor without including large organizations that constitute only up to 6% of the Lebanese
industry. Moreover, we have failed to include public service organizations in our sample
due to several constraints. Another limitation of this study is that it followed a deductive
approach only to study the relationship between variables. Future research can include a
qualitative analysis and interviews to provide more insightful information on leadership
as a practice that implements sustainable change. Another limitation can be drawn from
the data collocation time horizon, which follows a cross-sectional rather than a longitudi-
nal approach. This can restrict the ability to capture dynamic changes in leadership and
organizational transformation over time.
In view of the projected shift in Middle East and Gulf countries like Dubai and
Qatar, which are developing sustainable smart cities and attracting educated workers
from different cultural and educational backgrounds [94,95], it is strongly suggested that
this model be tested in these areas in order to guide change efforts and determine the
leadership style that should be adopted to foster sustainable and continuous change.
Future studies should focus on other leadership style categories as well as the Kotter
transformation model. A future study might look at the link between the transactional and
transformational leadership styles, as well as the other planned change models described
in this paper.

Author Contributions: Methodology, N.B.Z.; Investigation, J.C. and H.B.; Resources, M.R.; Writing—
original draft, A.M.M. and A.B.H.-L.; Writing—review & editing, F.A.; Visualization, H.B. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding and the APC was funded by the Lebanese
International University.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Lebanese International University
(LIUIRB-231031-AM-301, 12 December 2023).
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to confidentiality.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kotter, J. Change Management vs. Change Leadership—What’s the Difference? 2011. Forbes Online. Available online:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2011/07/12/change-management-vs-change-leadership-whats-the-difference/
?sh=7da6a4264cc6 (accessed on 1 May 2023).
2. Anderson, L.A.; Anderson, D. The Change Leader’s Roadmap: How to Navigate Your Organization’s Transformation; John Wiley & Sons:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 384, ISBN 0470648066.
3. Hiatt, J. ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and Our Community; Prosci Learning Center Publications: Loveland,
CO, USA, 2006.
4. Kotter, J.P. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail; Harvard Business Review Press: Brighton, MA, USA, 1995.
5. Schein, E.H. Kurt Lewin in the Clasroom, in the Field, and in Change Theory: Notes toward a Model of Managed Learning; Sloan School of
Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995.
6. Bullock, R.J.; Batten, D. It’s just a phase we’re going through: A review and synthesis of OD phase analysis. Gr. Organ. Stud. 1985,
10, 383–412. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 32 of 34

7. Hersey, P.; Blanchard, K.H. Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources; Academy of Management: Briarcliff
Manor, NY, USA, 1969; p. 10510.
8. Lippitt, R.; Watson, J.; Westley, B. The Dynamics of Planned Change; Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1958.
9. Cheng, E.C.K.; Ko, P.Y. Leadership strategies for creating a Learning Study Community. KEDI J. Educ. Policy 2012, 9, 163–182.
10. du Plessis, M. Re-implementing an individual performance management system as a change intervention at higher education
Institutions—Overcoming staff resistance. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Management, Leadership and
Governance, Sophia-Antipolis, France, 6–7 October 2011; pp. 105–115.
11. Pollack, J.; Pollack, R. Using Kotter’s Eight Stage Process to Manage an Organisational Change Program: Presentation and
Practice. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2014, 28, 51–66. [CrossRef]
12. Smith, I. Organisational quality and organisational change: Interconnecting paths to effectiveness. Libr. Manag. 2011, 32, 111–128.
[CrossRef]
13. Campbell, R.J. Change management in health care. Health Care Manag. 2008, 27, 23–39. [CrossRef]
14. Guzmán, W.Z.; Gely, M.I.; Crespo, K.; Matos, J.R.; Sánchez, N.; Guerrero, L.M. Transformation of a dental school’s clinical
assessment system through Kotter’s Eight-Step Change process. J. Dent. Educ. 2011, 75, 485–495. [CrossRef]
15. Kotter, J.P.; Cohen, D.S. The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations; Harvard Business Press:
Brighton, MA, USA, 2012; ISBN 1422187330.
16. Lin, M.; Effendi, A.A.; Iqbal, Q. The Mechanism Underlying the Sustainable Performance of Transformational Leadership:
Organizational Identification as Moderator. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15568. [CrossRef]
17. Alqatawenh, A. Transformational leadership style and its relationship with change management. Bus. Theory Pract. 2018, 19,
17–24. [CrossRef]
18. Saeed, S.A.A.; Gelaidan, H.; Ahmad, F. New leadership style and lecturers’ commitment in Yemen higher education institutions.
World Appl. Sci. J. 2013, 21, 1460–1467.
19. Herold, D.M.; Fedor, D.B.; Caldwell, S.; Liu, Y. The Effects of Transformational and Change Leadership on Employees’ Commit-
ment to a Change: A Multilevel Study. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 346–357. [CrossRef]
20. Weiherl, J.; Masal, D. Transformational leadership and followers’ commitment to mission changes. Int. J. Public Adm. 2016, 39,
861–871. [CrossRef]
21. van der Voet, J.; Groeneveld, S.; Kuipers, B.S. Talking the Talk or Walking the Walk? The Leadership of Planned and Emergent
Change in a Public Organization. J. Chang. Manag. 2014, 14, 171–191. [CrossRef]
22. der Voet, J.; Kuipers, B.S.; Groeneveld, S. Implementing Change in Public Organizations: The relationship between leadership
and affective commitment to change in a public sector context. Public Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 842–865. [CrossRef]
23. Seijts, G.H.; Gandz, J. Transformational change and leader character. Bus. Horiz. 2018, 61, 239–249. [CrossRef]
24. Berson, Y.; Avolio, B.J. Transformational leadership and the dissemination of organizational goals: A case study of a telecommuni-
cation firm. Leadersh. Q. 2004, 15, 625–646. [CrossRef]
25. Higgs, M.; Rowland, D. All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. J. Chang. Manag. 2005, 5,
121–151. [CrossRef]
26. Yukl, G. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadersh. Q. 1999, 10,
285–305. [CrossRef]
27. Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J. The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational
development. Res. Organ. Chang. Dev. 1990, 4, 231–272.
28. Kotter, J.P. Leading Change; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; ISBN 1422186431.
29. Kotter, J.P.; Rathgeber, H. Our Iceberg is Melting: Changing and Succeeding under Any Conditions; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2006; ISBN 0312368526.
30. Sverdrup, T.E.; Stensaker, I.G. Restoring trust in the context of strategic change. Strateg. Organ. 2018, 16, 401–428. [CrossRef]
31. Gutiérrez-Iñiguez, Á.; Collado-Agudo, J.; Rialp-Criado, J. The Role of Managers in Corporate Change Management: A Bibliometric
Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10811. [CrossRef]
32. Grint, K. Leadership: Limits and Possibilities; Macmillan International Higher Education: London, UK, 2005; ISBN 1137070587.
33. Wood, M. The fallacy of misplaced leadership. J. Manag. Stud. 2005, 42, 1101–1121. [CrossRef]
34. O’Connell, D.; Hickerson, K.; Pillutla, A. Organizational visioning: An integrative review. Gr. Organ. Manag. 2011, 36, 103–125.
[CrossRef]
35. Drath, W.H.; Palus, C.J. Making Common Sense: Leadership as Meaning-Making in a Community of Practice; Center for Creative
Leadership: Greensboro, NC, USA, 1994; ISBN 1932973516.
36. Katz, D.; Maccoby, N.; Morse, N.C. Productivity, Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation. Part I; Institute for Social Research:
Oxford, UK, 1950.
37. Stogdill, R.M.; Coons, A.E. Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Adm. Sci. Q. 1957, 3, 271–273. [CrossRef]
38. Crevani, L.; Lindgren, M.; Packendorff, J. Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership as practices and interactions. Scand.
J. Manag. 2010, 26, 77–86. [CrossRef]
39. O’Toole, J. Leading Change: Overcoming the Ideology of Comfort and the Tyranny of Custom; The Jossey-Bass Management Series;
Jossey-Bass Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1995; ISBN 1555426085.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 33 of 34

40. Di Schiena, R.; Letens, G.; Van Aken, E.; Farris, J. Relationship between Leadership and Characteristics of Learning Organizations
in Deployed Military Units: An Exploratory Study. Adm. Sci. 2013, 3, 143–165. [CrossRef]
41. Pitkethly, A.; Prosser, M. The first year experience project: A model for university-wide change. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2001, 20,
185–198. [CrossRef]
42. Robbins, S.P.; Coulter, M.A. Management, 14th ed.; Pearson Higher Education FT Prentice Hall: London, UK, 2017; ISBN
0134527607.
43. Bass, B.M.; Bass, R. The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications; Free Press: New York, NY, USA,
2009; ISBN 9780743215527.
44. Miller, D.; Sardais, C. A concept of leadership for strategic organization. Strateg. Organ. 2011, 9, 174–183. [CrossRef]
45. Bass, B.M. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985; ISBN 0029018102.
46. Mouazen, A.M.; Hernández-Lara, A.B. Visualising the quality and the evolution of transactional and transformation leadership
research: A 16-year bibliometric review. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2023, 34, 148–182. [CrossRef]
47. Avolio, B.J.; Bass, B.M. Developing Potential Across a Full Range of Leadership TM: Cases on Transactional and Transformational
Leadership; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2001. [CrossRef]
48. Thurgood, K.L. HIC SUNT LEONES: Effective leadership and the challenge of change. Eur. J. Manag. 2015, 15, 27–30. [CrossRef]
49. Gelaidan, H.M.; Ahmad, H. Employee affective commitment to change, leadership styles and organisational culture: A case of
Yemen public sector. In Proceedings of the 16th International Business Information Management Association Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 29–30 June 2011; Volume 4, pp. 2047–2056.
50. Lirong, L.; Minxin, M. Impact of leadership style on organizational change an empirical study in China. In Proceedings of the
2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM, Dalian, China, 12–17
October 2008. [CrossRef]
51. der Voet, J. The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization: Transformational leadership and a
bureaucratic organizational structure. Eur. Manag. J. 2014, 32, 373–382. [CrossRef]
52. Kakucha, W.N. The Role of Charismatic Leadership in Change Management Using Kurt Lewin’s Three Stage Model. Int. J. Bus.
Manag. 2015, 3, 634–638.
53. Bakari, H.; Hunjra, A.I.; Niazi, G.S.K. How Does Authentic Leadership Influence Planned Organizational Change? The Role of
Employees’ Perceptions: Integration of Theory of Planned Behavior and Lewin’s Three Step Model. J. Chang. Manag. 2017, 17,
155–187. [CrossRef]
54. Eva, N.; Wolfram Cox, J.; Tse, H.H.M.; Lowe, K.B. From competency to conversation: A multi-perspective approach to collective
leadership development. Leadersh. Q. 2021, 32, 101346. [CrossRef]
55. Schulze, J.H.; Pinkow, F. Leadership for Organisational Adaptability: How Enabling Leaders Create Adaptive Space. Adm. Sci.
2020, 10, 37. [CrossRef]
56. Kelemen, T.K.; Matthews, S.H.; Breevaart, K. Leading day-to-day: A review of the daily causes and consequences of leadership
behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 2020, 31, 101344. [CrossRef]
57. Iqbal, Q.; Ahmad, N.H. Sustainable development: The colors of sustainable leadership in learning organization. Sustain. Dev.
2021, 29, 108–119. [CrossRef]
58. Thakhathi, A.; le Roux, C.; Davis, A. Sustainability Leaders’ Influencing Strategies for Institutionalising Organisational Change
towards Corporate Sustainability: A Strategy-as-Practice Perspective. J. Chang. Manag. 2019, 19, 246–265. [CrossRef]
59. Alolabi, Y.A.; Ayupp, K.; Dwaikat, M. Al Issues and Implications of Readiness to Change. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 140. [CrossRef]
60. Raelin, J.A. Toward a methodology for studying leadership-as-practice. Leadership 2020, 16, 480–508. [CrossRef]
61. Curtis, G.J.; Cerni, T. For Leaders to be Transformational, They Must Think Imaginatively. J. Leadersh. Stud. 2015, 9, 45–47.
[CrossRef]
62. Curtis, G.J.; King, G.; Russ, A. Reexamining the Relationship Between Thinking Styles and Transformational Leadership: What Is
the Contribution of Imagination and Emotionality? J. Leadersh. Stud. 2017, 11, 8–21. [CrossRef]
63. Antonakis, J.; House, R.J. Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational-transactional leadership
theory. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 746–771. [CrossRef]
64. Remund, D. Asking the right questions, involving the right people. The responsibility of corporate communications leaders. J.
Leadersh. Stud. 2011, 5, 40–52. [CrossRef]
65. Kotter, J.P.; Schlesinger, L.A. Choosing strategies for change. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 130. [CrossRef]
66. Li, V.; Mitchell, R.; Boyle, B. The Divergent Effects of Transformational Leadership on Individual and Team Innovation. Gr. Organ.
Manag. 2016, 41, 66–97. [CrossRef]
67. Springer, P.J.; Clark, C.M.; Strohfus, P.; Belcheir, M. Using transformational change to improve organizational culture and climate
in a school of nursing. J. Nurs. Educ. 2012, 51, 81–88. [CrossRef]
68. Tipu, S.A.A.; Ryan, J.C.; Fantazy, K.A. Transformational leadership in Pakistan: An examination of the relationship of transforma-
tional leadership to organizational culture and innovation propensity. J. Manag. Organ. 2012, 18, 461–480. [CrossRef]
69. Islam, G.; Zyphur, M.J. Rituals in organizations: A review and expansion of current theory. Gr. Organ. Manag. 2009, 34, 114–139.
[CrossRef]
70. Harris, W. Lebanon: A History, 600–2011 (Studies in Middle Eastern History); Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; ISBN
0190217839.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 16 34 of 34

71. Mouazen, A.M.; Hernández-Lara, A.B. Gig Economy Practices, Ecosystem, and Women’s Entrepreneurship: A Theoretical Model
BT—Research and Innovation Forum 2022; Visvizi, A., Troisi, O., Grimaldi, M., Eds.; Springer Proceedings in Complexity; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 597–604.
72. Mouazen, A.M.; Hernández-Lara, A.B. Entrepreneurial ecosystem, gig economy practices and Women’s entrepreneurship: The
case of Lebanon. Int. J. Gend. Entrep. 2023, 15, 249–274. [CrossRef]
73. Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1970, 30, 607–610. [CrossRef]
74. Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Second Edition Sampler Set: Technical Report, Leader Form,
Rater Form, and Scoring Key for MLQ Form 5x-Short. 2000. Available online: https://www.mindgarden.com/16-multifactor-
leadership-questionnaire (accessed on 1 March 2020).
75. Avolio, B.J.; Bass, B.M.; Jung, D.I. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the
Multifactor Leadership. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 1999, 72, 441–462. [CrossRef]
76. Rowold, J.; Heinitz, K. Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of
the MLQ and the CKS. Leadersh. Q. 2007, 18, 121–133. [CrossRef]
77. Chin, W.W.; Marcolin, B.L.; Newsted, P.R. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction
effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 2003, 14,
189–217. [CrossRef]
78. Becker, J.-M.; Klein, K.; Wetzels, M. Hierarchical Latent Variable Models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for Using Reflective-Formative
Type Models. Long Range Plann. 2012, 45, 359–394. [CrossRef]
79. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016; ISBN 1483377431.
80. Wong, K.K.-K. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 2013, 24,
1–32.
81. Hulland, J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J.
1999, 20, 195–204. [CrossRef]
82. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.; Boudreau, M.-C. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Commun.
Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 4, 7. [CrossRef]
83. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
84. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [CrossRef]
85. Pavlou, P.A.; Fygenson, M. Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned
behavior. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 115–143. [CrossRef]
86. Hair, J.; Hollingsworth, C.L.; Randolph, A.B.; Chong, A.Y.L. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information
systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 442–458. [CrossRef]
87. Chin, W.W. Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Q. 1998, 22, 7–16.
88. Bass, B.M.; Stogdill, R.M. Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications; Simon and Schuster:
New York, NY, USA, 1990; ISBN 0029015006.
89. Holten, A.-L.; Brenner, S.O. Leadership style and the process of organizational change. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2015, 36, 2–16.
[CrossRef]
90. Halmaghi, E.-E.; Ranf, D.-E.; Badea, D. Interdisciplinary Exploration between Organizational Culture and Sustainable Develop-
ment Management Applied to the Romanian Higher Education Environment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10688. [CrossRef]
91. Adam, N.A. Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior and Change Management Phases in Government Institutions: The Mediating
Role of Knowledge Sharing. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 28. [CrossRef]
92. Natter, M.; Mild, A.; Feurstein, M.; Dorffner, G.; Taudes, A. The effect of incentive schemes and organizational arrangements on
the new product development process. Manag. Sci. 2001, 47, 1029–1045. [CrossRef]
93. Al-Qura’an, A. The Impact of Transformational Leadership on Organizational Change Management: Case Study at Jordan Ahli
Bank. IOSR J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 17, 1–7.
94. Mouazen, A.M.; Hernández-Lara, A.B. The role of sustainability in the relationship between migration and smart cities: A
bibliometric review. Digit. Policy Regul. Gov. 2021, 23, 77–94. [CrossRef]
95. Mouazen, A.M.; Hernández-Lara, A.B. A Bibliometric Review of Smart Cities and Migration BT—Research and Innovation Forum 2020;
Springer Proceedings in Complexity; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 123–133.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.