The Change Challenge: Understanding Resistance in China’s Public Sector Tobacco Industry

The Change Challenge: Understanding Resistance in China’s Public Sector Tobacco Industry

Wanxian Deng^1,3 Siti Noormi Alias*¹, Ahmad Aizuddin Md Rami¹, Ismi Arif Ismail^1,2

¹Department of Professional Development and Continuing Education, Faculty of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Selangor, Malaysia,

²Institute for Social Science Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Selangor, Malaysia,

 ³Yuxi Normal University, 653100 Yunnan, China

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020044

Received: 28 January 2025; Accepted: 31 January 2025; Published: 01 March 2025

ABSTRACT   

Organizational resilience and readiness to change are crucial for survival in today’s turbulent business environment. Known as the “world’s factory,” China has the highest GDP in Asia and is the second largest economy globally. However, limited theoretical understanding exists regarding the mechanisms and strategies addressing resistance to change (RTC) in China. This conceptual paper aims to explore the antecedents of RTC among employees in the public sector. A review of the literature identifies organizational factors such as leader-member exchange, organizational justice, and organizational climate as influencing RTC, mediated by trust in management. The paper proposes a theoretical framework integrating Fairness Heuristic Theory and the Theory of Interpersonal Behavior to examine these factors. It suggests the need for further empirical research on RTC in China’s public sector, derived from this framework, to gain deeper insights into resistance to change across various contexts.

Keywords: Resistance to Change, Leader-Member Exchange, Organizational Justice, Organizational Climate, Trust in Management

INTRODUCTION

Organizational resilience and readiness to change are vital for survival in today’s turbulent business environment. Numerous economic success stories have emerged as a result of embracing change. For instance, increased fiscal decentralization has enhanced economic globalization in seven highly decentralized countries, including Brazil, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA (Chi, Muhammad, Khan, Z.. Ali, & Li, 2021). Other examples include the integration of the crayfish-rice system in China’s agriculture (Jiang & Cao, 2021), the adoption of a circular economy in Australia (Sohal & De Vass, 2022), and the creation of artificial rivers in the Netherlands (De Jong, Veldwisch, Melsen, & Boelens, 2024). Change is essential across various business activities to strengthen national economic growth.

Often referred to as the “world’s factory,” China has the highest gross domestic product (GDP) in Asia and is the second largest economy globally (FocusEconomics, 2024). China’s influence and expansion around the world are very impressive (Yuan & Zhang, 2020) as a result of public-private partnership and transformations (Cheng, Wang, Xiong, Zhu, & Cheng, 2021). However, this rapid development has also introduced substantial challenges (Naz, Jamshed, Nisar, & Nasir, 2023). Despite these challenges, China has demonstrated a resolute commitment to achieving financial stability through continuous industrial restructuring (Zhang & Dilanchiev, 2022). Nevertheless, there remains a limited theoretical understanding of the mechanisms and strategies employed to address resistance to change within the country.

Recently, China has initiated a digital government transformation (DGT), leveraging information and

communication technologies (ICT) to reshape governance systems and enhance capabilities (Yang, Ran, Chen, & Zhang, 2024). This transformation has become an essential strategic choice for governments seeking to improve service delivery. In this context, the digital economy and artificial intelligence are central goals of organizational change initiatives and human resource planning in China (Budhwar, Malik, De Silva, & Thevisuthan, 2022; Mhlanga, 2022; Lund & Wang, 2023). However, Yang et al. (2024) argue that the digital transformation of the public sector in China remains underexplored. This article has therefore been developed to address these gaps in the literature.

Resistance to Change 

Resistance to change is a common phenomenon which opposed the change effort, it alludes to the employees’ unfavorable behavior during the organizational transformational process (Li, Sun, Tao, & Lee, 2021; Tanner, 2023). Based on past data, resistance to change accounts for 70% of failed organizational change (Alasadi & Askary, 2014; Buick et al., 2015; Hughes, 2016). It is uncommon for organizations to successfully execute changes in line with anticipated plans, as stated by Vakola and Petrou (2018). Kurt Lewin first introduced the idea of employee resistance to change in his 1940s (Bernard Burnes & Bargal, 2017). According to Lewin (1947) opposition to change will continue as long as managers and staff cannot agree on how to get to the desired result. In the 1950s and 1960s, the idea of resistance to change gained popularity, and it has since been widely regarded as a necessary component of the procedure of change. There are numerous definitions and variations of organizational resistance to change in the current scholarly literature. For example, Dent and Goldberg (1999) believed resistance to change is an expression frequently used to indicate a negative change-related problem. Furxhi (2021) defined employee resistance to change is thought to be an adverse mindset towards change. While Piderit (2000) proposed that resistance to change is a multi-dimensional concept, which needs to expound employees’ ambivalence towards change from multiple perspectives.

Piderit noted existing some conceptualizations of resistance to change, namely, cognitive resistance to change manifested by thinking mode or lack of preparation (Achilles A Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993), refusal to adapt to change through actions (Coch & French, 1948), and defensive habits that are a manifestation of anxiety or emotional instability (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Therefore, Piderit proposed a concept of resistance to change, which is composed of three primary components: affective, cognitive, and behavioral. The cognitive component pertains to the employees’ evaluation of the value and potential advantages of the change, the affective component to both favorable and adverse feelings associated with particular changes, and the behavioral component to the employees’ motives to oppose the change or to use negative language against the change (Oreg, 2006).

The limitations of the previous concepts were compensated for by Piderit’s (2000) multidimensional notion, which may help to explain the inconsistent emotive, cognitive, and behavioral resistance to change among individuals. Although they may not exhibit strong resistance behaviors, such personnel may oppose change affectively and cognitively. This viewpoint’s confirmed by Guerras and Navas (2015),  individuals showed resistance to change in a variety of methods, including overt (e.g., sabotage, labor disputes, or strikes), and covert (e.g., deceit, low motivation, and lack of trust in the company) (Robbins, Sanghi, &Judge, 2009). In other words, employees may agree to organizational changes but not take active supportive action. Furthermore, according to Oreg (2006), the cognitive and emotive aspects of resistance are linked to anticipated benefits and job security as a result of change.

THEORETICAL PREMISE

This study integrates Fairness Heuristic Theory (FHT) and the Theory of Interpersonal Behavior (TIB) to offer a deeper insight into resistance to change in digital government transformation (DGT) among employees in China’s public sector.

Fairness Heuristic Theory

Lind and MacCoun (1992) were the first to suggest the fairness heuristic theory (FHT), while Lind, Kulik,

  Ambrose, and Park (1993) were the first to publish it. FHT posits that people use their “judgements of fairness” to make a heuristic decision about trusting others (e.g., trust in management) before choosing an acceptable level of engagement in groups, organizations, and institutions (Lind, Kray, & Thompson, 2001; Lind, 2018). People make justice judgements based on a variety of considerations to make sure they make choices that ultimately result in cooperative behavior. Justice judgements are thought of as a proxy for interpersonal trust, directing people to behave cooperatively in social situations, including within an organization (Lind, 2001; Van den Bos, Wilke, & Lind, 1998). This theory aligns with Confucian values, which emphasize fairness and trust as key foundations before adapting to new changes ( Wang, Sun, Hon, & Zhu, 2024).

According to FHT, people utilize cues related to justice (such as organizational culture, leadership, and procedural) to assess the justice of encounters or circumstances when confronted with ambiguity or insufficient information. People by applying these fairness heuristics to make decisions fast and effectively in order to build trust, ultimately directing social interactions and individual behavior (Lind, 2018). In other words, fairness information can act as a heuristic proxy for determining whether or not to trust authorities when people are aware that ambiguity exists (Van Den Bos, 2001; Van den Bos et al., 1998). Therefore, while determining how to assess outcomes that originate from authority, justice serves as a heuristic substitute for explicit trust information.

A key tenet of the FHT is that people make decisions about their willingness to collaborate with authority (i.e., accept changes) based on their views of fairness. Employees will exhibit good attitudes and behaviors when they receive equitable treatment (Kebede & Wang, 2022). Van den Bos (2001) and Lind (2001) claim that people utilize justice as a stand-in for trust because it is hard to observe the legitimacy of power. Authority demonstrates a propensity to treat subordinates fairly, which reflects managers’ desire to keep positive working relationships with them. According to Newman, Fast, and Harmon (2020), this relationship can enable leaders and subordinates to build a high-quality LMX, which benefits organizational members and fosters trust in authority.

This theory explains the connection between resistance to change, trust in management and organizational factors (LMX, organizational fairness, and organizational climate), as well as trust in management as a mediator in this relationship. Because organizational change is inherently uncertain, ambiguous, and prone to failure ( Newman, Round, Wang, & Mount, 2020; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006), employees will assess a variety of justice experiences (e.g., LMX, organizational justice, climate) in order to determine their attitudes and behaviors in the workplace(Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). Additionally, by generating overall justice judgements, people were able to determine if authorities were trustworthy during the execution of the change and whether they supported or blocked it (Jacobs & Keegan, 2018; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).

Theory of Interpersonal Behavior

The theory of interpersonal behavior (TIB) was first forth by Triandis in 1977. TIB suggests that people frequently consider their own feelings, which are typically impacted by external as well as internal factors, in addition to the perceived characteristics of the circumstance while making decisions (White, Habib, & Hardisty, 2019; Jackson, 2005; Triandis, 1979). According to Robinson (2010), TIB is of significance because external circumstances (facilitating conditions) are taken into account as the behavior’s premise.

Based on Triandis (1979), TIB indicated more objective facilitating conditions that either help or hinder behavior, it makes the assumption that a person’s habit and other facilitating conditions can either help or hinder them from performing a specific behavior. Osbourne and Clarke (2008) defined habits as the frequency with which a person has previously engaged in a specific behavior. The ability of the individual to perform the behavior, their level of arousal to perform the act, and their understanding of how to perform the target behavior are all considered facilitating conditions. He added that facilitating conditions primarily apply to any environmental factors, such as a supportive work environment or an equitable allocation of resources, that make a specific behavior simple to carry out.

Additionally, the TIB highlights that facilitating conditions require beliefs regarding the “presence or absence of necessary resources and opportunities” (i.e., enabling resources) (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Ajzen, 1991). According to the theory, for a person to successfully carry out a behavior, the external setting should encourage them to do so that is, it must arouse them to carry out the behavior. Due to external conditions are a significant factor affecting behavior (Triandis, 1979). People may aim to satisfy their own wants in this external context (Daramy-Williams, Anable, & Grant-Muller, 2019).

Therefore, complex behaviors that may be impacted by social and physical surroundings can be effectively explained by the TIB (Betts, Setterstrom, Pearson, & Totty, 2014; Maticka-Tyndale, Herold, & Mewhinney, 1998). TIB also offers a more thorough explanation of how people’s intentions and actions are influenced by their surroundings. However, further research is needed to determine the external factors influence that encourage particular behaviors. Araujo and Presseau (2008) pointed out that in the absence of precise guidelines, the researchers could be left to define these variables (external facilitating conditions) operationally. Also, Pee, Woon, and Kankanhalli (2008) believed the theory of interpersonal behavior is hence adaptable enough to encompass a variety of situations.

The idea of resistance to change, especially in organizational contexts, was linked to the theory of interpersonal behavior. According to TIB, people typically assign behaviors to either external (situational) or internal (personal) reasons, when organizational change takes place, people may oppose it and blame it on external factors like organizational factors (LMX, organizational justice, and organizational climate) if they feel the change is being forced upon them without their knowledge. these elements either help or hinder the adoption of changing behavior Triandis (1979). Hence, in order to explain how external factors affect the willingness to adopt organizational change behavior, this study employs Triandis’ (1979) TIB as a theoretical foundation.

Van den Bos (2001) and Lind (2001) proposed through fairness heuristic theory (FHT) that in the absence of evidence to trust managers, the employee uses perceptions of justice judgment to accept any new organizational changes. Employees’ willingness to accept organizational changes according to theory of interpersonal behavior (TIB) by Triandis (1979) depends on external factors, such as organizational factors (LMX, organizational justice, and organizational climate). The above two theories explain the relationship between organizational factors (LMX, organizational justice, and organizational climate), trust in management and resistance to change. Therefore, this study proposes the following theoretical framework:

Figure1: Theoretical Framework

Furthermore, resistance to change is also characterized by both explicit and implicit resistance. Appelbaum, Degbe, MacDonald, and Nguyen-Quang (2015) found resistance is not always evident, instead of publicly protesting and objecting to change, employees may use other means to voice their disapproval of organizational change plans. One example is employees frequently fail to actively support or encourage change efforts (Giangreco & Peccei, 2005). Compared to explicit resistance such as strikes, labor conflicts, sabotage, or work defects, implicit resistance is hard to detect and more dangerous. Therefore, change managers should identify the factors influencing resistance, and modify their strategies accordingly to lower the likelihood of resistance to change and eventually facilitate organizational change.

Previous research has demonstrated that several organizational factors might contribute to lowering employees’ resistance to change. Such as change atmosphere (e.g., Papademetriou, Anastasiadou, Ragazou, Garefalakis, & Belias, 2023); information (e.g., Heath, Porter, & Dunegan, 2020); the quality of communication and participation (e.g., Amarantou, Kazakopoulou, Chatzoudes, & Chatzoglou, 2018). Meanwhile, organizational justice was considered that could lessen change resistance (AlDossari, 2016; Lewin ,1951), because employee’s perception of organizational justice has a key role in encouraging them to take beneficial steps towards organizational change.

ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS, TRUST IN MANAGEMENT AND RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Organizational Factors and Resistance to Change

LMX and Resistance to change The quality of an employee’s relationship with their superior is referred to as leader-member exchange (LMX) (Graen & Cashman, 1975). The primary idea behind LMX, which was first put forth by Graen and Dansereau in 1972, is that leaders and their followers or members form two kinds of relationships: high-quality LMX and low-quality LMX. According to previous research, a high quality of LMX can interchange more valuable resources, including knowledge, promotion, and rewording (Bass, 1990). As demonstrated by Liao and Hui (2019) effective coalition building can significantly affect the effectiveness of organizational change, because high-quality LMX can convert resources into positive outcomes more effectively than any one person could on their own. Additionally, several pieces of empirical research have demonstrated that LMX can help lessen individual resistance to change. According to a study by Rehman et al. (2021), LMX significantly and negatively affects resistance to change in Pakistan’s banking sector. Samal & Chatterjee (2022) also demonstrated a negative correlation between LMX quality and M&A staff’s individual RTC. Hence, LMX is an important antecedent of resistance to change among employees.

Organizational justice and Resistance to change In the view of Greenberg (1987), an individual’s impression of fairness in an organizational setting is what constitutes organizational justice. According to earlier studies on justice, one of the key elements affecting employee’s willingness to embrace change is organizational justice (Michel, Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2010). According to Colquitt’s (2001) definition of organizational justice includes distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice and information justice, namely employees’ equitable assessment of the outcomes of resource distribution and procedures, interpersonal interactions, and information sharing pertaining to individual interests within an organization is known as organizational justice. A finding by Croonen (2010) and Kebede and Wang (2022), perception of injustice is a significant factor of resistance to strategic change in the organization, and resistance to organizational change increases with the severity of injustice (Kernan & Hanges, 2002). In line with Lewin (1951), he thought organizational justice was a crucial component in the early stages of change, which can lessen resistance and aid in the successful implementation of the change. Similarly, some evidence suggested that resistance to change is significantly and negatively impacted by organizational justice (Lizar et al., 2019; Saruhan, 2014; Shah, 2011).

Organizational climate and Resistance to change Researchers began adopting the phrase “organizational climate” in the 1950s (Argyris, 1958). Various definitions of organizational climate have been developed by academicians based on numerous viewpoints. According to Schneider, Ehrhart, and MacEy (2013) and Randhawa and Kaur (2014), organizational climate is the perception and experiences that members of the organization have of the organizational environment in which they are situated. In addition, the elements of organizational climate can be divided according to different research purposes (Schneider,1990). For instance, Patterscon et al. (2005) proposed an organizational climate measurement (OCM) that can be used in organizational change research, they proposed segmenting the organizational climate into four quadrants: internal processes, open systems, human relations, and rational goals.

Given prior studies, the way individuals act and behave inside an organization can be influenced by the organizational climate (Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Pritchard & Karasick, 1973; Randhawa & Kaur, 2014). This is owed to the fact that an organization’s climate can influence the attitudes, actions, and patterns of interpersonal relationships among its members (Denison, 1996; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Shi, Gao, and Xu (2012) indicated employee excitement for change may wane under an unfavorable organizational climate. Besides, Cuadra-Peralta, Veloso-Besio, Iribaren, and Pinto (2017) discovered a climate that was unsuitable for organizational development at the organizational level was an indicator of resistance to change. Recent research by Kuen, Lum, and Kim’ (2023) confirmed enhancing organizational climate could lessen resistance behavior.

Based on the above discussion, this study hypothesized that:

H1a: There is a significantly negative relationship between LMX and employee resistance to change.

H1b: There is a significantly negative relationship between organizational justice    and employee resistance to change.

H1c: There is a significantly negative relationship between organizational climate and employee resistance to change.

Trust in Management and Resistance to Change

Trust refers the positive expectations and confidence that people have in the words, acts, and decisions of others when risks or dangers are involved (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Tan, Yang, & Veliyath, 2009). Trust in leadership has been regarded as the key concept in applied management related fields early (Argyris, 1962; Likert, 1967; Read, 1962). Numerous studies have shown that trust in management appears to have a significant impact on lowering or avoiding resistance to change(Carolina and Benson, 2001; Oreg, 2006; Thomas & Davies, 2005; Thomas, Sargent, & Hardy, 2011). According to a recent study by Doeze Jager, Born, and van der Molen (2022), organizational trust and resistance to change were found to be negatively connected in both planned and unplanned change situations. This perspective was in Keeping  with Stanley, Meyer, and Topolnytsky (2005), who discovered a link between employees’ intentions to oppose change and their level of trust in management. Those with low levels of trust show higher levels of behavioral, affective, and cognitive resistance. Therefore, the management that is able to inspire staff trust appears to be more successful in preventing resistance to change.

Based on the above discussion, this study hypothesized that:

H1d: There is a significantly negative relationship between trust in management and employee resistance to change.

Organizational factors and Trust in management

LMX and Trust in management Mutual trust, respect, and accountability are the cornerstones of high-quality LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Haifeng Liu, Song, Xu, Xu, & Li, 2023). Because social exchange fosters mutual trust and accountability, Blau (1964) found that trust is connected with the exchange connection, quality of the exchange, and the exchange process. Trust is shattered when the exchange does not go as planned. According to Martin et al. (2016), LMX is a trust-building process. Based on Dansereau et al. (1975), leaders and their followers might develop greater trust if they maintain a cordial relationship. In a similar vein, a finding by Botero and Van Dyne (2009) and  Schriesheim et al. (1999), when LMX is of high quality, the superior is seen as reliable. Recent research also proved that employees’ faith in management and LMX were positively correlated (Lau & Höyng, 2023; Xue & Moon, 2019).

Organizational justice and Trust in management Evidence showed that the development of trust within an organization is strongly predicted by justice (Farndale, Hope‐Hailey, & Kelliher, 2011; Thornhill & Saunders, 2003). The degree of fairness of senior management’s actions determines how much trust employees have in them (Macey & Schneider, 2008). because justice in the workplace helps employees get rid of anxiety and uncertainty and boost their trust in the outcomes of change (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002). Therefore, organization should be honest and open to preserve employee happiness and confidence (Lee, Hong, Shin, & Lee, 2023). According to Grunenberg, Prantl, Heidt, and Kals (2024), an organizational justice system can promote interpersonal trust. In the meantime, some research has also discovered a connection between supervisor trust and organizational justice (e.g., Farndale et al., 2011; Masterson et al., 2000; Mey, Werner, & Theron, 2014). Thereby, employees will have more faith in their management when they believe that the organization is justice.

Organizational climate and Trust in management Employee behavior within the organization is significantly affected by a favorable organizational climate (Destler, 2017). According to early research by Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993), a climate of positive human connections can also foster trust in management, and employees’ faith in senior management’s ability to handle change can inspire believe in it. Because human interactions, or how individual of an organization behave with one another in such an environment, are one way that climate can be conveyed (Arnaud & Schminke, 2012). Moreover, the interaction between the organization and the individual was also crucial to work efficiency since it relied on cooperation and teamwork (Snell, 1999). The effect of human relationships and their impact on the psychological state of change readiness were further validated by the findings of Hatjidis, Griffin, and Younes’s (2019). Because embracing or opposing behaviors associated to change depends on one’s readiness for change (Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000).

Based on the above discussion, this study hypothesized that:

H2a: There is a significantly positive relationship between LMX and trust in management.

H2b: There is a significantly positive relationship between organizational justice and trust in management.

H2c: There is a significantly positive relationship between organizational climate    and trust in management.

Mediating Role of Trust in Management

Dansereau et al. (1975) believed LMX can foster an setting of mutual trust between leaders and subordinates, it will ultimately result in better outcomes for the organization (Graen, 1976; Graen & Cashman, 1975). Because subordinates who receive trust from high-quality LMX may be more inclined to go above and beyond to finish tasks in order to protect the interests of leaders and organizations (Sun, Long, & Li, 2018). Wang and Zhang (2016) also noted that because of the influence of traditional Chinese culture, when subordinates win their bosses’ trust, they feel obligated to do more to repay them. According to a study by Van Dam et al. (2008), they found trust in management acts as a mediator in the association between development climate and LMX and resistance to change. In accordance with another study by Abuzid and Abbas (2017), organizational trust significantly mediates the relationship between LMX and change resistance, and LMX decreased employee resistance to change.

According to past study findings, employees who have previously experienced unjust treatment may have a lower level of trust in management and react poorly to organizational change (Achilles A Armenakis et al., 1993). Since an organization’s justice is the foundation of trust, injustice causes people to lose faith in it, which in turn causes negative behaviors to surface (Georgalis et al., 2015). On the contrary, Oosthuizen et al. (2018) indicated when employee believe organization is fair, their trust in the organization will rise, which will boost their level of engagement at work (Agarwal, 2014), as well employees are more inclined to help an organization achieve its objectives (Alias, Rasdi, Ismail, & Samah (2013). Moreover, high-level employees’ trust and involvement in the decision-making process for change increase with the strength of their view of procedural justice, which in turn increases the acceptance of change (Rutherford & Holt, 2007;Zainalipour, Fini, & Mirkamali, 2010), and lessens the possibility of resistance to change.

One prior research study by Van Dam et al.(2008), trust plays a mediating role in the relationship between change resistance and development climate as a specific category of organizational climate. This suggests that organizational change may be implemented more smoothly in an environment with a strong development climate, and that employees who perceive a positive development climate are more confident in management and exhibit less resistance to change. According to Rodríguez-Sánchez et al. (2020), employee attitudes and beliefs were influenced by the organizational climate. This favorable trend makes employees evaluating organizational changes more favorably, demonstrating greater job satisfaction, a stronger sense of happiness, and trust in management (Fu & Deshpande, 2014; Gould-Williams, 2007). As stated by Das and Teng’s (1998), the degree of mutual organizational trust and benefits between change agents and change beneficiaries, improves the working environment, results in a favorable reaction to the changes, and encourages active engagement in the change process, thereby reducing the risk of resistance.

Based on the above discussion, this study therefore hypothesized that:

H3: Trust in management mediates the relationship between organizational factors (leader-member exchange, organizational justice and organizational climate) and employee resistance to change.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEORK

Based on the discussion above, a conceptual framework was put forth in this study, which suggests trust in management is considered a mediator used to explore the influence of organizational factors (leader-member exchange, organizational justice and organizational climate) on resistance to change among public sector employees in China.

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework

CONCLUSION

Organizational change for most organizations is crucial for long term survivability, especially for China, where technology is developing rapidly. However, given the fact that 70% of significant organizational changes fail to achieve the desired results or fail altogether (Warrick, 2023) . Meanwhile, resistance to change is One of obstacle to organizational human resource development (Dorling, 2017). Therefore, continuous studies related to the antecedents of influence on employees’ resistance to change are needed. The literature review of this study indicates that there is a correlation between organizational factors (LMX, organizational justice, and organizational climate), trust in management and resistance to change.

The findings suggested that organizational factors (LMX, organizational justice, organizational climate) have shown positive association with trust in management, as well as negative association with resistance to change among employees, additionally, trust in management mediates the relationship between organizational factors (leader-member exchange, organizational justice and organizational climate) and employee resistance to change. This indicated that high-quality LMX, the perception of organizational justice and favorable organizational climate are an effective strategy for diminishing employees’ resistance to change. Furthermore, employees who fail to trust management may have shown more resistance.

The most significant contribution of this paper is the formulation of a theoretical framework which gives a deeper understanding of the relationship between organizational factors, trust in management and resistance to change. This is because the fairness heuristic theory (FHT) (Van den Bos, 2001; Lind, 2001) combined with Triandis (1979)’s theory of interpersonal behavior (TIB) are rarely integrated to explain resistance to change, it is also still limited in the Chinese context. FHT offers a theoretical framework for comprehending how organizational factors (LMX, organizational justice, organizational climate) affect resistance and how trust in management plays a mediating role in the relationship between antecedents and resistance to change. TIB emphasizes external factors (LMX, organizational justice, and organizational climate) play a role in hinder or facilitate resistance behavior (Triandis, 1979). Above two theories provide a theoretical basis for the practice of human resource management in organizational change in China context. Finally, the present paper proposed that more empirical studies on the antecedents of resistance to organization in public sector of China. Future research should focus on empirically testing this framework to validate its effectiveness in different contexts.

REFERENCES

1. Abuzid, H. F. T., & Abbas, M. (2017). Impact of LMX and organizational trust on resistance to change vis-A-vis mediating effect of employee perception of organizational justice. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(18), 277–293.
2. Agarwal, U. A. (2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement. Personnel Review, 43(1), 41–73.
3. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behaviour: attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453–474.
4. Ajzen, Icek. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, (2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
5. Alasadi, R., & Askary, S. (2014). Employee involvement and the barriers to organizational change. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 6(1), 29–51.
6. AlDossari, S. (2016). Overcoming Resistance to Change in Saudi Arabian Organizations: A Correlation Study between Resistance to Change and Organizational Justice. 178.
7. Alias, M., Rasdi, R. M., Ismail, M., & Samah, B. A. (2013). Predictors of workplace deviant behaviour: HRD agenda for Malaysian support personnel. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(2), 161–182.
8. Amarantou, V., Kazakopoulou, S., Chatzoudes, D., & Chatzoglou, P. (2018). Resistance to change: an empirical investigation of its antecedents. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(2), 426–450. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2017-0196
9. Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: a test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 491.
10. Appelbaum, S. H., Degbe, M. C., MacDonald, O., & Nguyen-Quang, T. S. (2015). Organizational outcomes of leadership style and resistance to change (Part two). Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(3), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-07-2013-0045
11. Araujo, S., & Presseau., J. (2008). Theory-based Behavior Prediction and Change: An Interview with Gaston Godin. The European Health Psychologist, 10(3), 51–53.
12. Argyris, C. (1958). Some problems in conceptualizing organ_izational climate: A case study of a bank. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(501–520).
13. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14. Argyris, Chris. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness. Dorsey Press.
15. Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601
16. Armenakis, Achilles A, Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703.
17. Arnaud, A., Schminke, M. (2012). The ethical climate and context of organizations: A comprehensive model. Organization Science, 23(6), 1767–1780.
18. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Simon and Schuster.
19. Betts, T. K., Setterstrom, A. J., Pearson, J. M., & Totty, S. (2014). Explaining cyberloafing through a theoretical integration of theory of interpersonal behavior and theory of organizational justice. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 26(4), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2014100102
20. Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 84–104.
21. Budhwar, P., Malik, A., De Silva, M. T. T., & Thevisuthan, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence – challenges and opportunities for international HRM: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(6), 1065–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2035161
22. Buick, F., Ann, D., Michael, B., Donnell, E. O., Louise, J., Damian, O. F., … Damian, O. F. (2015). Can enhanced performance management support public sector change? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-12-2013-0249
23. Burnes, B. (2015). Understanding resistance to change-Building on Coch and French. Journal of Change Management, 15(2), 92–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2014.969755
24. Burnes, Bernard, & Bargal, D. (2017). Kurt Lewin: 70 Years on. Journal of Change Management, 17(2), 91–100. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2017.1299371
25. Carolina, G. and Benson, R. (2001). The Leader-Member Exchange as a Link between Managerial Trust and Employee Empowerment. Group and Organization Management, 26(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601101261004
26. Cheng, Z., Wang, H., Xiong, W., Zhu, D., & Cheng, L. (2021). Public–private partnership as a driver of sustainable development: Toward a conceptual framework of sustainability-oriented PPP. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 1043–1063.
27. Chi, M., Muhammad, S., Khan, Z.. Ali, S., & M., L. R. Y. (2021). Is centralization killing innovation? The success storyof technological innovation in fiscally decentralized countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 168, 120731.
28. Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming Resistance to Change. Human Relations, 1(4), 512–532. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/ 001872674800100408
29. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
30. Croonen, E. (2010). Trust and fairness during strategic change processes in franchise systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 191–209.
31. Cuadra-Peralta, A. A., Veloso-Besio, C., Iribaren, J., & Pinto, R. (2017). Intervention for supervisors, based on social skills and leadership, in order to improve organizational climate perception and organizational performance outcomes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-10-2016-0205
32. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations. A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7
33. Daramy-Williams, E., Anable, J., & Grant-Muller, S. (2019). Car use: Intentional, habitual, or both? Insights from anscombe and the mobility biography literature. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(24), 7122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247122
34. Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491–512.
35. De Jong, L., Veldwisch, G. J., Melsen, L. A., & Boelens, R. (2024). Making Rivers, Producing Futures: The Rise of an Eco-Modern River Imaginary in Dutch Climate Change Adaptation. Water, 16(4), 598.
36. Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619–654.
37. Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “Resistance to Change .” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 35(1), 25–41.
38. Destler, K. N. (2017). A matter of trust: Street level bureaucrats, organizational climate and performance management reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(3), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw055
39. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450–467.
40. Doeze Jager, S. B., Born, M. P., & van der Molen, H. T. (2022). The relationship between organizational trust, resistance to change and adaptive and proactive employees’ agility in an unplanned and planned change context. Applied Psychology, 71(2), 436–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12327
41. Dorling, J. L. (2017). Impact of psychological capital on the resistance to change during post-merger integration: A theoretical model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(6), 936–956. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2015-0199/FULL/XML
42. Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3), 419–442.
43. Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–40.
44. Farndale, E., Hope‐Hailey, V., & Kelliher, C. (2011). High commitment performance management: The roles of justice and trust. Personnel Review, 40(1), 5–23.
45. Focus Economics. (2024). Retrieved from https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/special-report-focus-2024/
46. Fu, W., & Deshpande, S. P. (2014). The Impact of Caring Climate，Job Satisfaction，and Organizational Commitment on Job Performance of Employees in a China’s Insurance Company. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 339–349.
47. Furxhi, G. (2021). Employee’s Resistance and Organizational Change Factors. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 6(2), 30–32. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2021.6.2.759
48. Georgalis, J., Samaratunge, R., Kimberley, N., & Lu, Y. (2015). Change process characteristics and resistance to organizational change: The role of employee perceptions of justice. Australian Journal of Management, 40(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0312896214526212
49. Giangreco, A., & Peccei, R. (2005). The nature and antecedents of middle manager resistance to change: Evidence from an Italian context. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(10), 1812–1829. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500298404
50. Gould-Williams, J. (2007). HR practices, organizational climate and employee outcomes: Evaluating social exchange relationships in local government. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(9), 1627–1647. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585190701570700
51. Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. Leadership Frontiers, 143, 165.
52. Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1201–1245.
53. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
54. Greenberg, J. (1987). A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306437
55. Grunenberg, M., Prantl, J., Heidt, K., & Kals, E. (2024). Trust in interorganizational collaboration: the role of organizational justice and affect. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift Fur Angewandte Organisationspsychologie, 55(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-024-00728-6
56. Guerras, L. A., & Navas, J. E. (2007). La direccion estratégica de la empresa. Teoria y aplicaciones. Thomson-Civitas, Vol. 1, p. 704. Retrieved from http://www.guerrasynavas.es/pdf/cede_recension.pdf
57. Hatjidis, D., Griffin, M., & Younes, M. (2019). Linking universal network quality perception and change readiness: The mediating roles of tacit knowledge and organizational climate. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(4), 1017–1035. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-06-2018-1442
58. Heath, M., Porter, T. H., & Dunegan, K. (2020). Obstacles to continued use of personal health records. Behaviour and Information Technology, 41(3), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1829051
59. Hughes, M. (2016). Who killed change management? Culture and Organization, 22(4), 330–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14759551.2014.966247
60. Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption: a review of evidence on consumer behaviour behavioural change. Sustainable Development Research Network, 29(1), 30–40.
61. Jacobs, G., & Keegan, A. (2018). Ethical considerations and change recipients’ reactions: “It’s not all about me.” Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3311-7
62. Jiang, Y., & Cao, C. (2021). Crayfish–rice integrated system of production: an agriculture success story in China. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 41, 1–14.
63. Kebede, S., & Wang, A. (2022). Organizational Justice and Employee Readiness for Change: The Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(March), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.806109
64. Kernan, M. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2002). Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 916.
65. Kuen, K., Lum, C., & Kim, S. H. (2023). What makes police officers resist research and evidence-based policing? Examining the role of organizational and environmental factors. Policing (Oxford), 17, paad051. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paad051
66. Lau, A., & Höyng, M. (2023). Digitalization? A Matter of Trust: A Double-Mediation Model Investigating Employee Trust in Management Regarding Digitalization. Review of Managerial Science, 17(6), 2165–2183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00598-6
67. Lee, S., Hong, S., Shin, W.-Y., & Lee, B. G. (2023). The Experiences of Layoff Survivors: Navigating Organizational Justice in Times of Crisis. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(24), 16717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416717
68. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row.
69. Lewin, Kurt. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change. In Human Relations (Vol. 1). https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103
70. Li, J.-Y., Sun, R., Tao, W., & Lee, Y. (2021). Employee coping with organizational change in the face of apandemic: The role of transparent internal communication. Public Relations Review, 47(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101984 PMID:36568504
71. Liao, E. Y., & Hui, C. (2021). A resource-based perspective on leader-member exchange : An updated meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38, 317–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9594-8
72. Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lind.
73. Lind, E. A. (2001a). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In Advances in organization justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford University.
74. Lind, E. A. (2001b). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations Advances in organizational justice (J. G. & R. Cropanzano, Ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
75. Lind, E. A. (2018). Trust and fairness. In The Routledge companion to trust (pp. 183–196). Routledge.
76. Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (2001). Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predictions from fairness. Heuristic Theory Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2937
77. Lind, E. A., Kulik, C., Ambrose, M., & Park, M. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224–251.
78. Lind, E. A., & MacCoun, R. J. (1992). The fairness heuristic: Rationality and relationality in procedural choice. The 1992 Annual Meeting of the Society for the Advancement of Socioeconomics, Irvine, CA.
79. Lind, E Allan, & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181–223.
80. Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate. Boston: Harvard University Press.
81. Liu, H., Song, Z., Xu, Y., Xu, X., & Li, J. (2023). Exploring Explanatory Mechanisms of Adjustment-Specific Resources Underlying the Relationship between Leader–Member Exchange and Work Engagement: A Lens of Conservation of Resources Theory. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021561
82. Lizar, A. A., Chrisanty, F. N., Novita, P. A., & Endaryono, S. S. D. T. (2019). Minimizing Resistance to Change: The Role of Communication and Perceived Organizational Justice. SU-AFBE 2018: Proceedings of the 1st Sampoerna University-AFBE International Conference, SU-AFBE 2018, 6-7 December 2018, Jakarta Indonesia, 211. European Alliance for Innovation.
83. Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries? Library Hi Tech News, 40(3), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009
84. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). Engaged in engagement: We are delighted we did it. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 76–83.
85. Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121.
86. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738–748.
87. Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D. (. (1998). Casual sex on spring break: Intentions and behaviors of Canadian students. Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551941
88. Mey, M., Werner, A., & Theron, A. (2014). The influence of perceptions of organizational trust and fairness on employee citizenship. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 12(3), 99–105.
89. Mhlanga, D. (2022). The role of artificial intelligence and machine learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: What lessons are we learning on 4IR and the sustainable development goals. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031879 PMID:35162901
90. Michel, A., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2010). I scratch your back–you scratch mine. Do procedural justice and organizational identification matter for employees’ cooperation during change? Journal of Change Management, 10(1), 41–59.
91. Naz, S., Jamshed, S., Nisar, Q. A., & Nasir, N. (2023). Green HRM, psychological green climate and pro-environmental behaviors: An efficacious drive towards environmental performance in China. Current Psychology, 42(2), 1346–1361.
92. Newman, A., Round, H., Wang, S., & Mount, M. (2020). Innovation climate: A systematic review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), 73–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOOP.12283
93. Newman, D. T., Fast, N. J., & Harmon, D. J. (2020). When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.008
94. Oosthuizen, A., Rabie, G. H., & De Beer, L. T. (2018). Investigating cyberloafing, organisational justice, work engagement and organisational trust of South African retail and manufacturing employees. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v16i0.1001
95. Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500451247
96. Osbourne, J. A., & Clarke, M. (2008). Factors motivating the acceptance of new information and communication technologies in UK Healthcare: A test of three models. In Information Communication Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1036–1046). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-949-6.ch069
97. Papademetriou, C., Anastasiadou, S., Ragazou, K., Garefalakis, A., & Belias, D. (2023). Obstacles and resistances to organizational changes. In Managing Successful and Ethical Organizational Change (pp. 144–166). https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-0235-4.ch007
98. Pee, L. G., Woon, I. M. Y., & Kankanhalli, A. (2008). Explaining non-work-related computing in the workplace: a comparison of alternative models. Information & Management, 45(2), 120–130.
99. Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. https://doi.org/10.2307/259206
100. Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. W. (1973). The effects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9(1), 126–146.
101. Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1154–1162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1154
102. Randhawa, G., & Kaur, K. (2014). Organizational climate and its correlates. Journal of Management Research, 14(1), 25–40.
103. Read, W. H. (1962). Upward Communication in Industrial Hierarchies. Human Relations, 15(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 001872676201500101
104. Rehman, N., Mahmood, A., Ibtasam, M., Murtaza, S. A., Iqbal, N., & Molnár, E. (2021). The Psychology of Resistance to Change: The Antidotal Effect of Organizational Justice, Support and Leader-Member Exchange. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(August), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678952
105. Robbins, S., Sanghi, S., & Judge, T. (2009). Organizational behaviour: concept, features and importance. London: Pearson Education.
106. Robinson, J. (2010). Triandis’ theory of interpersonal behaviour in understanding software piracy behaviour in the South African context. University of the Witwatersrand. Johannesburg, South Africa.
107. Rodríguez-Sánchez, J.-L., Mercado-Caruso, N., & Viloria, A. (2020). Managing human resources resistance to organizational change in the context of innovation. In Marketing and Smart Technologies (pp. 330–340). Springer.
108. Rutherford, M. W., & Holt, D. T. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical look at the innovativeness dimension and its antecedents. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), 429–449.
109. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, (23), 224-253.
110. Saruhan, N. (2014). The role of corporate communication and perception of justice during organizational change process. Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(4), 143–166.
111. Schneider, B. (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
112. Schneider, Benjamin, Ehrhart, M. G., & MacEy, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809
113. Schriesheim, C., Castro, S., & Cogliser, C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63–113. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1048984399800095
114. Shah, N. (2011). A study of the relationship between organisational justice and employee readiness for change. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 24(3), 224–236. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410391111122835
115. Shi, K., Gao, L., & Xu, H. (2012). The influence of leadership authorization behavior on employee silence: an analysis of the moderating effect of trust. Management Review, 24(10), 94–101.
116. Sohal, A., & De Vass, T. (2022). Australian SME’s experience in transitioning to circular economy. Journal of Business Research, 142, 594–604.
117. Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. In Journal of Business and Psychology (Vol. 19). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-4518-2
118. Sun, L., Long, L. R., & Li, Z. Y. (2018). The effects and mechanisms of employees feeling trusted on performance review. Chinese Journal of Management, 15(1), 144–150.
119. Tan, J., Yang, J., & Veliyath, R. (2009). Particularistic and system trust among small and medium enterprises: A comparative study in China’s transition economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(6), 544–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.05.007
120. Tanner, R. (2023). Organizational change: Eight reasons why people resist change. Retrieved from https://managementisa journey.com/ organizational-change-8-reasonswhy-people-resist-change/
121. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Wiley.
122. Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2005). Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New public management and managerial identities in the UK public services. Organization Studies, Vol. 26, pp. 683–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605051821
123. Thomas, R., Sargent, L. D., & Hardy, C. (2011). Managing organizational change: Negotiating meaning and power-resistance relations. Organization Science, 22(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0520
124. Thornhill, A., & Saunders, M. (2003). Exploring employees’ reactions to strategic change over time: the utilisation of an organisational justice perspective. Irish Journal of Management, 24(1), 66–86.
125. Triandis, H. C. (1979). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 195–259.
126. Vakola, M., & Petrou, P. (2018). An overview of the impact of organizational change on individuals and organizations: An introductory note. In Organizational Change (pp. 1–11). London: Routledge.
127. Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to organisational change: The role of leader-member exchange, development climate, and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology, 57(2), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1464-0597.2007.00311.x
128. Van den Bos, K. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory. Theoretical and Cultural Perspectives on Organizational Justice, 63, 52–64.
129. Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A., & Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1449.
130. Van Den Bos, Kees. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.931
131. Wang, H., & Zhang, Q. (2016). The cost of feeling trusted: The study on the effects of feeling trusted from supervisor, role overload, job stress and emotional exhaustion. Management World, 8, 110–125.
132. Wang, Q., Sun, N., Hon, A. H., & Zhu, Z. (2024). Linking organizational justice to tourism and hospitality employees’ service orientation: the roles of Confucian values and relationship quality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 36(6), 2107–2124.
133. Warrick, D. D. (2023). Revisiting resistance to change and how to manage it: What has been learned and what organizations need to do. Business Horizons, 66(4), 433–441.
134. White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: a literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49.
135. Xue, Y., & Moon, J. (2019). The effects of LMX and feeling trusted on job performance and workplace ostracism among Salespeople. Journal of Distribution Science, 17(4), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.17.04.201904.41
136. Yang, X., Ran, R., Chen, Y., & Zhang, J. (2024). Does digital government transformation drive regional green innovation? Evidence from cities in China. Energy Policy, 187, 114017.
137. Yuan, B., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Flexible environmental policy, technological innovation and sustainable development of China’s industry: The moderating effect of environment regulatory enforcement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 118543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118543
138. Zainalipour, H., Fini, A. A. S., & Mirkamali, S. M. (2010). A study of relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction among teachers in Bandar Abbas middle school. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1986–1990.
139. Zhang, Y., & Dilanchiev, A. (2022). Economic recovery, industrial structure and natural resource utilization efficiency in China: effect on green economic recovery. Resources Policy, 79, 102958.