Volume 25 Issue 1 Article 4 March 2023 Giving Sense to Change Leadership: Towards a Narrative-Based Giving Sense to Change Leadership: Towards a Narrative-Based Process Model Process Model Antonio Sadarić University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, PhD Student, Ljubljana, Slovenia Miha Š kerlavaj University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ebrjournal.net/home Part of the Human Resources Management Commons, and the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Sadarić , A., & Š kerlavaj, M. (2023). Giving Sense to Change Leadership: Towards a Narrative-Based Process Model. Economic and Business Review, 25(1), 41-63. https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1317 This Original Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economic and Business Review. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economic and Business Review by an authorized editor of Economic and Business Review. ORIGINAL ARTICLE Giving Sense to Change Leadership: Towards a Narrative-Based Process Model Antonio Sadari´ c a, * , Miha Škerlavaj b a University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, PhD Student, Ljubljana, Slovenia b University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia Abstract Introduction: Recent studies on change agency and organizational change failure have signicantly broadened the organizational behavior perspective on individual change experiences, however, the underlying mechanism for change leaders’ inuential behavior remains a relatively underspecied area. Objectives: Our central theoretical contribution focuses on the ways in which linking the ndings from different research areas that deal with storytelling and persuasive communication can contribute to understanding the underlying mechanism of change leaders’ inuential behavior. Methods: We examine the various strands of research in management concerned with change leadership and persua- sive communication, and propose a multidisciplinary perspective from developmental psychology, linguistics, political science, consumer psychology, and religious studies. Results: Our approach draws on the key theoretical perspectives from the social cognitive theory and commensurable interdisciplinary ndings as the basis for a narrative-based process model of change leaders’ inuential behavior. Our model includes propositions about the change leader’s interpretation of ideological change as well as the change leader’s process of sensemaking and sensegiving. Conclusion: We argue that the change leader’s persuasive communication efforts are based on the leader’s narrative intelligence and inuence, which promote the change recipient’s attachment formation. Keywords: Change leadership, Persuasive communication, Narrative-based process model, Social cognitive theory JEL classication: M1, M12 Introduction O rganizational change is an ongoing human en- deavor. It is a context-dependent, unpredictable, nonlinear process with unintended outcomes (Balo- gun & Johnson, 2005). This suggests that change as a verb instead of as a noun denes change as a never- ending cycle instead of being a static occurrence with an ending. The future of organizational devel- opment (e.g. digital transformation) heavily relies on the change leaders’ efforts aimed at inuenc- ing and mobilizing networks of change recipients (Battilana et al., 2009, 2010; Škerlavaj et al., 2016), effectively changing the status quo. Some change Received 8 December 2021; accepted 3 May 2022. Available online 1 March 2023 * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: antonio.sadaric@ef.uni-lj.si (A. Sadari´ c), miha.skerlavaj@ef.uni-lj.si (M. Škerlavaj). agents demonstrate champion behaviors (e.g. Baer, 2012; Howell & Higgins, 1990b), while others rely on power and leadership inuence tactics (Battilana & Casciaro, 2021; Furst & Cable, 2008; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl et al., 1993). Regardless of the approach, the inevitable end goal is to engage and mobilize a critical mass, which is required to turn the planned organi- zational change into a broadly accepted reality. What remains to be understood is how and by what means successful change leaders persuade change recipients towards organizational change adoption using story- telling. In general, leading change can be characterized as an extensive communication effort to give sense to https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1317 2335-4216/© 2023 School of Economics and Business University of Ljubljana. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 42 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 change through anticipating and addressing conicts arising from recipients’ diverging needs and percep- tions (Appelbaum et al., 2012; Mento et al., 2002), effectively inuencing how organizational realities are interpreted during the sensemaking process (e.g. Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). These intensive persua- sive communication efforts of change leaders focused on benet perceptions and giving sense to a newly formed reality, can be identied in different research elds (e.g. Hill & Levenhagen, 1995). One of many research directions considers how stories give sense to organizational incidents and how powerful nar- ratives are in creating perceived realities (e.g. Boje, 1991). Unlike much research that prioritizes the orga- nizational change’s sensemaking process (e.g. Liu & Perrewe, 2005; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010), this paper aims to contribute by theorizing about the change leader’s utilization of stories to aid the sensegiving process during organizational change. Our central theoretical contribution focuses on the ways in which linking the ndings from different research areas that deal with persuasive communi- cation and storytelling can help understand the role of storytelling in leading change. We thus observe the dyadic relationship between the change leader and the change recipients in an effort to provide some synthesized coherence and expand the under- standing of organizational change. More specically, by observing how the change leader’s utilization of leadership inuence tactics (Yukl & Tracey, 1992), champion behavior (Howell et al., 2005) and narrative intelligence (Randall, 1999) affects the sensemaking process of change recipients, we build upon the emotional-cognitive process suggested by Liu and Perrewe (2005) and enrich it with interdisciplinary perspectives. Our narrative-based process model pro- poses conceptual relationships, while acknowledging numerous suggestions from Cornelissen (2017). We suggest a commensurable theoretical perspective of organizational change that combines: (a) social cog- nitive theory (Bandura, 1989) as the overarching foundation for the triggers of organizational change; (b) adult attachment theory (Bowlby & Ainsworth, 2013) as the foundation for the mediating mecha- nisms of organizational change; and (c) social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982) as the desired outcome of or- ganizational change. We propose that organizational change is an ongoing and dynamic state with tan- gible triggers but intangible endings that effectively manifest as minor or major changes in organizational ideology. We argue that change leaders can intervene meaningfully during the sensegiving process of or- ganizational change, and thus affect the way change recipients make sense of the altered ideological frame- work within the organization. To provide remedies that frequent trouble narrative-based theorizing, we explore a multidisciplinary range of research focusing on inuential behavior, persuasive communication and storytelling. Additionally, we simultaneously offer further argumentation prior to starting a propo- sition, in addition to the available organizational behavior literature. This paper is organized into four sections. First, we review current management studies concerned with organizational change and focus our attention to the most cited and therefore most inuential articles cen- tering on persuasive communication, storytelling and change in top-tier journals within the Web of Science. This includes perspectives from: developmental psy- chology (e.g. Richards & Schat, 2011), linguistics (e.g. Stromberg, 1990), political science (e.g. Reicher, 2004), consumer psychology (e.g. Woodside et al., 2008), and religious studies (e.g. Singer & Lalich, 1995). Sec- ond, we summarize theoretical perspectives with the social cognitive theory as the overarching theoreti- cal foundation of our narrative-based process model. Third, we elaborate propositions about the change leader’s sensemaking and sensegiving processes dur- ing organizational change. Finally, we conclude our narrative-based process model and highlight our the- oretical and practical contribution with directions for future research. We are thankful to our editor and anonymous re- viewers, whose time and effort invested in creating constructive commentary helped us develop this pa- per even further. 1 The theoretical insights on organizational change failure Various streams of literature dealing with organizational change tackle the philosophical question of dening change, and linguistics debate if the word should be a verb or a noun. Overall, there is no uniform denition that could holistically account for the contextual richness of change. As the working environment continues to be disrupted digitally, work demands inevitably increase, which in turn increases the complexity and forms a negative feedback loop on future performance (Luscher et al., 2008). It comes as no surprise that a fairly novel stream of literature observes organizational change failure as a separate and interesting research eld. Schwarz et al. (2021) observed organizational change failure through deterministic, voluntarist, and entrepreneurial perspectives. On the other hand, Hay et al. (2021) observed or- ganizational change failure through the lens of sense- making and how such failure affected work–identity ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 43 formation. Heracleous and Bartunek (2021) observed organizational change failure through a multilevel lens and concluded that certain short-term failures were necessary for the major organizational change to be successful, because the organization learned to deal with change in the process. Change processes in- evitably bring interdependency into the organization; numerous interpretations of newly formed circum- stances furthermore drive ambiguity and equivocal- ity (Luscher et al., 2008). In other words, organizations are faced with the continuous pressure to adapt to the rapidly changing environment, which in turn adds complexity, reduces clarity, and increases organiza- tional change failure. Therefore, we turn our attention to change agency in an effort to gain a better un- derstanding of how to reduce organizational change failure. Change is a collective effort. Agency constructs the workplace, as different levels of information and interest ow throughout the organization, which is susceptible to interpretation (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Previous literature debates have observed the issue of agency in organizations, emphasizing the im- portance of embeddedness, which is closely linked to social engagement (Tasselli & Kilduff, 2021). The crucial reason for organizational change failure is the failure to engage employees in change-related activi- ties, which are necessary for successfully completing change (Appelbaum et al., 2012). Implementation rates of such innovative endeavors are led by change leaders who inuence change recipients’ perceptions by utilizing persuasive behavior in hopes of inu- encing perception of ongoing change and tackling recipients’ natural inclination to maintain homeosta- sis and resist change (Holt et al., 2007; Oreg, 2003, 2006). Humans are prone to homeostasis and falli- ble by nature. The change recipient usually perceives the change initiatives as a threat (Balogun & John- son, 2005; Ford et al., 2008), rather than as a benet, thus further emphasizing how change leaders’ efforts are crucial for successful change implementation. Dif- ferent literature streams discuss why organizational change failure occurs so frequently and present nu- merous reasons for this. For example, Weick (1988) mentioned the importance of self-efcacy in terms of making sense of oneself as being capable of dealing with such change and minimizing change resistance. Heracleous and Bartunek (2021) emphasized that or- ganizational change should be observed as discourse, where arguments are accepted or refuted among the targeted population. The sensemaking process is where change recipients assess potential benets and threats of change and form their attitudes (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Thus, this is where meaningful in- terventions can be made. This also implies that the sensegiving process should enable easier sensemak- ing for affected employees (Bandura, 2001a). Such dynamics inuence how a certain change is per- ceived, and ongoing organizational polarity towards such a change process heavily inuences this percep- tion (De Keyser et al., 2021). Despite how inuencing opinions about a proposed change are an inevitable part of change adoption, Tor- mala and Petty (2002) demonstrated how individuals are more certain about their attitudes and resist per- suasion when exposed to higher levels of elaboration. On the other hand, Aronson (1999) suggested that individuals tend to naturally resist persuasion and respond best to self-persuasion, where they can in- ternalize their own thoughts on the subject. Another reason for organizational change failure is the iden- tity crisis and negative emotional reactions caused by perceived threats stemming from change, thus leading to individual resistance to change (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010; Repovš et al., 2019). In other words, despite the signicant advances in under- standing change agency, the underlying mechanism for successful inuential behavior during organiza- tional change is still quite unexplored and represents the main research subject of this paper. 2 The interdisciplinary perspective of inuential behavior Change leaders’ inuential behavior needs to af- fect positively the change recipients’ sensemaking process. The sensemaking process is where change re- cipients assess potential benets and threats of change and form their attitudes (Balogun & Johnson, 2005), and in the case of perceived threats overpowering perceived benets build resistance to change (Oreg, 2003). Behavioral uncertainties can be resolved by learning acceptable behavior that others display (e.g. champion change leaders’ behavior), as mentioned in the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989, 2001b; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Therefore, this sensemaking process is a prerequisite for the sensegiving pro- cess in which the change leader will be involved, aimed at managing change recipients’ perception of the change initiative. As Hogg (2001) suggested, the leader requires some form of referential authority to be inuential or perceived as a person whose advice is benecial. Popper and Mayseless (2003) suggested an interesting relationship in which a leader’s role is similar to that of a parent’s in stressful and turbulent occurrences within the organization. Davidovitz et al. (2007) highlighted how leaders can be perceived as at- tachment gures, illustrating that different inuences affect bond formation with recipients and vice versa 44 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 (e.g. Berson et al., 2006; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). The effectiveness of inuential tactics depends on the re- lationship between the leader and the aimed target of inuence (Sparrowe et al., 2006), thus leaders have to adapt their inuential objectives and corresponding tactics depending on the desired direction of inuence (Yukl et al., 1995). Such persuasive communication efforts tend to gravitate towards using antromorphic actors in stories (Woodside et al., 2008) and story- telling tends to make the message more memorable and stimulating (Boje, 1991). Change leaders’ inuential behavior is an ongoing narrative. Liu and Perrewe (2005) argued how pos- itive information about organizational change will induce excitement in employees, while a high level of specic information, regardless of its affect, will induce fear. Rhodes and Brown (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature covering organi- zational change storytelling and identied ve key themes: sensemaking, communicating, change and learning, power, and identity and identication. This is in line with the aforementioned literature streams and suggests that the underlying mechanics of inu- encing could be understood by observing and mean- ingfully connecting the most common themes. Beigi et al. (2019) re-examined the underlying themes of or- ganizational change almost 15 years later, and based on their analysis of 165 articles, they proposed ve additional themes: subverting, manipulating, chal- lenging, dissenting, and alienation. Obviously, newer research focuses more on the darker and undesired behavior during organizational change, connected with divergent interests and different levels of readi- ness to change. To furthermore develop this theoretical paper, we have observed these emerging themes as actionable areas for change leaders and change recipients. Dur- ing our initial Web of Science screening, keywords “persuasion”, “narrative”, “inuence”, “storytelling” and “sensemaking-sensegiving” were the most fre- quent keywords that were associated with research articles across disciplines, including organizational behavior mentioned earlier. The largest number of articles containing aforementioned keywords outside of organizational behavior and organizational change were from: developmental psychology (e.g. Richards & Schat, 2011), linguistics (e.g. Stromberg, 1990), polit- ical science (e.g. Reicher, 2004), consumer psychology (e.g. Woodside et al., 2008), and religious studies (e.g. Singer & Lalich, 1995). Relying on well-established theoretical perspectives from organizational psychol- ogy, we dared to pursue divergent thinking pat- terns and explore connected interdisciplinary per- spectives, in an effort to meaningfully progress our understanding of how change leader’s storytelling operationalizes the sensegiving process. Similarly, it comes as no surprise that certain studies connected several disciplines together (e.g. Heracleous & Bar- rett, 2001) focusing on persuasive communication efforts, storytelling and sensegiving. Change lead- ers have power and aim to conduct change through learning and extensive communication. On the other hand, change recipients are expected to make sense of newly formed circumstances and go through the identication process. These emerging themes high- light major issues of organizational change and nar- row down the key areas that could contribute towards the understanding of inuencing during organiza- tional change. 2.1 Selected insights on inuential behavior from developmental psychology Change leaders’ inuential behavior is interdisci- plinary. The primary idea of any planned communi- cation is behavioral change. Complementary research streams offer commensurable ndings relevant to change leaders’ inuential behavior. These include developmental psychology, linguistics, political sci- ence, consumer psychology, and religious studies. Revolving around communication as the common denominator, these areas are relatively closely con- nected to change adoption as a general societal phenomenon and are concerned with similar research problems. Observing change leadership through the lens of developmental psychology brings forth sev- eral interesting perspectives. Harrell-Levy and Ker- pelman (2010) mentioned the importance of teachers during identity formation, with teachers serving the role of safety attachment objects during the turbu- lence of growing up. While attachment theory (e.g. Bowlby & Ainsworth, 2013) in its original form ad- dresses early life experiences and their impact on adult behavior, it also highlights that individuals form specic bonds in “times of distress,” i.e. the stress of change (Richards & Schat, 2011). Attachments to individuals differ in types and intensity (e.g. idoliz- ing celebrities as Houran et al. (2005), mentioned), forming different attachment styles (Keller, 2003), and the chief function of attachments is construed as conferring emotional security to the attached party, al- though attachment during change is not a prevailing topic in the literature. Individual’s cognitive development makes a differ- ence. Making sense of organizational change greatly depends on individual capacity of change recipi- ents. Kegan (1982) perspective of meaning-making accounts for a lifelong activity, starting from infancy and evolving in more complex solutions through a series of so called “evolutionary truces”, where very ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 45 truce is both an achievement of and a constraint on the meaning-making process. The more diverse set of experiences an individual encounter, the broader the understanding of self and what life is. Evolutionary truces affect how individuals are connected, included and attached to others in the world and how they are differentiated from others (Kegan, 1982). Gener- ally speaking, level of adult development determines the cognitive complexity and the capacity of the in- dividual to make sense from experienced life events, inevitably expanding different levels of consciousness (Kegan, 1994). More specically, when considering the context of organizational change, individual’s resistance to change can be observed through a three- system paradigm, reecting aforementioned orders of consciousness: the change-preventing system, the feeling system, and the knowing system (Kegan et al., 2009). When considering personal development per- spectives, Weick (1988) mentions the importance of self-efcacy as a signicant predictor of one’s capacity to deal with adversity and consequently the cognitive development an individual will experience from said adversity. Hardship accelerates ontogenesis. Through inter- preting environmental stimuli, individuals construct identity and dene themselves or develop a self- theory (Berzonsky, 2011). Greeneld (2009) high- lighted how environmental changes altered the way individuals learned and experienced society, thus af- fecting how naturally progressive cultural norms are further developed, which in turn affects how indi- viduals adapt to new behavioral norms. People are inevitably the product of their environment, but are simultaneously the producers of such an environ- ment as Wood and Bandura (1989) emphasized. In terms of developmental psychology and change lead- ership, Bandura (1989) highlighted the importance of addressing individuals’ self-inefcacy to exercise control over ruminative thoughts, because such inva- sive thoughts further emphasized threat perception and stimulated the build-up of stress and anxiety. These emotional reactions depend on the interpreta- tion of the revealed narratives and are equally human and relevant to change leaders and change recipients, considering both parties inevitably experience such emotions but deal with them differently. 2.2 Selected insights on inuential behavior from linguistics Phrasing differs how compelling a narrative is. Rosenbaum et al. (2018) fairly recent exploratory lit- erature review focused on reviewing the 13 most popular planned organizational change models af- ter Lewin’s seminal “freeze-unfreeze-freeze” model (e.g. Cummings et al., 2016). Their research ndings suggested that major planned organizational change models related to Lewin’s model and their common denominator was intensive communicational efforts change leaders conducted. Brown et al. (2009) sum- marized the most common topics in organizational change research and pointed out how organizational change created stories that could block change if they were not authentic or did not have a com- pelling narrative structure. As previously mentioned, these stories’ topics cover power, identity construc- tion and defense, plurivocality, sensemaking, and sense-destroying (Brown et al., 2009). Boje (1991) sug- gested there were healthy and unhealthy storytelling in organizations, where stories packed a lot more meaning because of their emotionally engaging com- ponent. Weick (2012) accentuated the importance of storytelling in sensemaking in terms of holding in- formational elements together, and visual learning, where organizational symbolism played an essential role in triggering emotional reactions and conveying behavioral cues. Stromberg (1990) mentioned the im- portance of myths and general stories about a certain societal surrounding in formulating an individual’s identity and understanding their self-story and self- creation. When observing these identication challenges af- ter organizational change failure, Hay et al. (2021) concluded that experienced challenges during the sensemaking process created four narrative trajecto- ries: identity loss, identity revision, identity afrma- tion, and identity resilience. When faced with context change and uncertainties about identity changes, peo- ple also seek proximity and comfort in familiar faces (e.g. Mawson, 2005) instead of purely relying on facts and rationalizing. This type of behavior opens up space for creating heroic and antagonistic archetypes (e.g. Fergnani & Song, 2020) in organizations expected to solve the problem or be the person to blame. However, similar to all other archetypes that occur in stories, organizational archetypes are subject to genre-specic limitations. In other words, individ- uals create stories about themselves based on the stories they process and are able to make sense of in the changed environment. Persuasive narratives transport individuals into a convergent state of mind within the narrative, where all mental systems and capacities become focused on events occurring in the narrative, thus causing psychological distanc- ing from the real world (Green & Brock, 2000). The narrative transportation process initiates narrative engagement, immersing an individual into a state of enjoying the narrative and inuencing the narra- tive’s subsequent story-related attitudes and beliefs (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009). A fairly known method 46 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 of utilizing the strength of narrative identity trans- portation is bibliotherapy, frequently used in patients suffering from depression (Gregory et al., 2004) and alleviating some form of negative emotions. The power of language is used frequently in politics and political behavior, which is an inevitable element of the human experience. 2.3 Selected insights on inuential behavior from political science The holy grail of inuential communication is changed behavior. One way of approaching the achievement of such desired outcomes is through the power perspective (e.g. Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989). On the other hand, power does not need to include coercive and totalitarian perspectives, but can represent the power of aligning values towards a pro-social goal, which benets everyone and en- gages the critical masses (e.g. Battilana & Casciaro, 2021). With every ideological setup, a different set of interests uctuates. Pfeffer (1992) argued the best way to overcome resistance was by acquiring more power than the resistors possess and being savvy with political skills. On the other hand, perception of strong organizational politics has numerous nega- tive effects on desired organizational outcomes, such as: employees’ lower overall satisfaction, challenging work and integrity, and no support for innovation (Parker et al., 1995). In other words, expecting indi- viduals to embrace change where the organization is perceived as rigid and totalitarian may not be as ef- fective as ideological differences that inevitably create opposing ideas and trigger a change resistance (e.g. Repovš et al., 2019) among groups of individuals. This threat perception leads towards a polarized “us ver- sus them” perception (Goldman & Hogg, 2016) in the organization, creating meaningful space for creating “resistance leaders.” Leaders’ political ideologies play an important role in decision-making processes (e.g. Chin et al., 2021) and belonging to an ideological stream plays an es- sential part in dening an individual’s identity (Hogg & Reid, 2006). This consideration of social catego- rization and belonging to a group heavily relies on the context of social identity (Reicher, 2004) where domination and resistance depend on how power- ful a certain ideological position is. Depending on an individual’s interpretation, adopting organizational change also can be observed as a question of freedom of choice, because individuals may not have a choice in voicing opinions about change (e.g. Hope, 2010). The modality of various interpretative schemes medi- ates discourse between individuals, where discourse can be observed as an inuential vehicle that affects an individual’s interpretations and actions (Hera- cleous & Barrett, 2001). When observing political discourse within the organizational change context, advocating for change may be as important as advo- cating against the existing status quo. Disassociation tactics and the antithesis approach shift attention to- wards the future (Cheney, 1983), ultimately leading towards individuals favoring future outlooks in favor of change (Chreim, 2002). Communication drives connections between group members, and connections drive results (van Vuuren & Elving, 2008). Two-sided messages that allow space for voicing opinions and attitudes are more persua- sive than one-sided messages similar to totalitarian perspectives (Allen, 1991), which suggests that more discourse builds the illusion of choice. When faced with unfavorable and turbulent circumstances, politi- cians rely on hope as a powerful tool for painting a more favorable and idealized future (Fenton, 2008). This ideal is easier to make sense of, thus, it comes as no surprise that Steigenberger (2015) mentioned hope as a powerful predictor of organizational change suc- cess. The aforementioned interdisciplinary perspec- tive concludes that storytelling engages the audience, stimulates identication, and ensures the intended message is understood (e.g. Rhodes & Brown, 2005; Vaara et al., 2016). Understanding intended messages particularly is important in the consumer behavior literature, because accepting novel products depends on creating awareness of needs that do not exist yet. 2.4 Selected insights on inuential behavior from consumer psychology Benet perception is one of the key research in- terests in consumer psychology literature. If change recipients are considered internal customers or recip- ients of change, insights from consumer psychology can illuminate additional perceptions of organiza- tional change. Negative perceptions of new initiatives and change agents leading change can be com- pared to innovation diffusion in marketing literature (e.g. Strang & Soule, 1998). The notable innovation diffusion curve speaks volumes about the small per- centages of innovators and early adopters who help spread positive impressions of a certain innovation before the broad audience accepted it. This is espe- cially true when employees are perceived as internal customers adopting a new product or service (Raq & Ahmed, 1993), thus obtaining the role of strategy implementation vehicles (Raq & Ahmed, 2000). Such an approach suggests that negativity and resistance towards the change initiative is present, because the need for a new product or service is enforced and not created meaningfully among employees (Ahmed ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 47 et al., 2003). Much has been said in terms of story- telling in marketing, from raising awareness about a certain product or service to generating a need for such consumption (e.g. Pulizzi, 2012). Woodside et al. (2008) additionally emphasized the importance of creating human elements and adding drama into stories to encourage emotional reactions from con- sumers, similar to Aaker (1997) efforts in creating brand personalities. Behaviors of leaders acting as in- uencers can be observed through different lenses, one of which is the position of a human brand, an umbrella term that refers to any well-known persona who is the subject of (internal) marketing communi- cations efforts (Thomson, 2006). Consumer behavior literature recognizes different human brands, including professional athletes and politicians who brand themselves (Scammell, 2015) to stimulate recipient attachment and inuence crit- ical masses through perceived trust and credibility (Sung & Kim, 2010). Carefully managed communica- tion patterns and a prebuilt image of the human brand aid organizations in leveraging the recipient’s attach- ment strength towards the human brand, effectively inuencing their behavior (Thomson, 2006). The end result is word-of-mouth advocating and behavioral change, depending on the human brand’s perceived values (Carlson & Donavan, 2013). Word of mouth can also be a form of inuential communication, especially when structured in the form of a com- pelling narrative or story, as Delgadillo and Escalas (2004) suggested. Synthesizing the aforementioned insights, crafting a compelling story, and highlighting the benets of organizational change could facilitate awareness building among organizational change re- cipients. This storytelling approach, focused on the perceptions of benets, could promote identication with the ambiguous environment of the future by reducing uncertainty and perceptions of threat. A similar approach can be identied with religious and corporate cults, where followers embrace the rapidly changing environment without questioning leader- ship decisions. 2.5 Selected insights on inuential behavior from religious studies We take this a step further and explore how re- ligious leaders exert inuential behavior. Cults are constantly changing and create a turbulent environ- ment, thus representing an interesting case study of change leadership. Cults represent religious inno- vation (Campbell, 1978; Stark & Bainbridge, 1980) and their nature is chaotic, characterized by constant change (Bainbridge & Stark, 1979). This is unlike sects, which rely on mainstream religion for regu- lation and governance (Stark & Bainbridge, 1980), exposing individuals to a fairly stable surrounding dependent on dogmatic statements and sacralization (Harrison et al., 2009). In cults, individuals adhere to constant change the cult leader drives through an in- tricate mechanism of social control, colloquially called “brain control.” Lalich (2004) demystied this process and highlighted how cultural forms and norms be- hind the central ideology steer individuals’ behavior by limiting their thought process, because individuals who do not adhere to proposed behavior are ostra- cized by the remaining group members who are ded- icated towards achieving the desired goal (e.g. Singer & Lalich, 1995). Cult members, similar to all other religious groups, perceive themselves through group membership. The main difference from other secular groups is in the epistemological approach towards understanding “the unseen,” which is achieved by listening to the leader, i.e. believing (Ysseldyk et al., 2010). Interestingly, some authors argue that corpo- rate cults exist today (Tourish & Pinnington, 2002; Tourish & Vatcha, 2005) and demonstrate similar destructive behaviors as religious cults without the religious content (Kulik & Alarcon, 2016). These types of leadership efforts essentially can be perceived as a carefully engineered sensegiving process, aimed to limit the freedom of sensemaking directions that group members can experience. Effectively, this de- structive leadership behavior is an extreme case of managing the ambiguity of change, connecting the aforementioned interdisciplinary insights. Elements of developmental psychology and attachment devel- opment can be seen in cults, as can the use of symbols and emotionally charged narratives, political behav- ior, and a general focus on members’ sense of utility. Therefore, we argue that regardless of the archetyp- ical role a change leader might embody, persuasive narratives will play a vital role in the actual mobiliza- tion of the aforementioned critical mass required to propel organizational change forward. 3 Theoretical congruence from divergent perspectives Change leaders’ persuasive communication is subjectively effective. Hogg (2001) deconstructs a leader’s inuence as the arisen appearance of being the most prototypical member within a specic group, because members of that group cognitively and behaviorally conform to that prototypical gradient. This is simply because individuals dene themselves through group participation and are willing to embrace ideas that will increase the 48 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 appearance of belonging to that particular group (Hogg & Reid, 2006). In that sense, information easily becomes inuence and begins gathering like-minded group members. The process of organizational change, regardless of its form, involves a movement in an organizational entity over time (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995), which can be characterized as a change in circumstances that interrupts well-practiced patterns of acceptable and desired behavior (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). Despite organizational change usually being triggered as an effort to improve competitiveness through efciency or effectiveness goals (Birkinshaw et al., 2008), change is often compared to grief (e.g. Zell, 2003); therefore, it comes as no surprise that such strong emotional reactions are followed by strong resistance to change (Oreg, 2003). Strong emotional reactions such as stress, fear, and anxiety naturally result from experiencing ambigu- ity change causes, triggering the human tendency to discover answers and thus relieve stress and anxi- ety levels (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). Once such answers are not easily available or do not exist, indi- viduals tend to create pluralistic ignorance, or their own sense of reality, which is sometimes completely opposite of the actual reality (Weick, 1988). After the initial change is triggered and both emotional and cognitive processing is complete, the individual seeks meaning of the changed surroundings. This desire to identify is predicated on the search for meaning, where meaning predicts the strength of how desir- able identication is (Chreim, 2002). Epitropaki et al. (2017) reduced the process of self-construal into two questions, which are inseparable from the environ- mental focus: (a) “Who am I in this situation?” and (b) “What should I do now?” Negotiating identi- cation during organizational change is dependent of social identication, where perceived roles within the desired group act as a truly integrative force for commonly understood communication (Hogg & Reid, 2006). In this context, inuencing could be per- ceived as the act of clarifying change dynamics and emphasizing the benets that arise from such ac- tivities, thus alleviating behavioral uncertainties that arise during organizational change. In essence, this could be considered as sensemaking, a process of social construction in which an individual tries to understand key elements of the new organizational reality (e.g. Gioia et al., 1994; Rouleau, 2005). Nat- urally, sensemaking is a result of the sensegiving process essentially dened as the act of inuenc- ing the way others make sense of, or interpret, a certain surrounding and understand desirable behav- ioral patterns (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). 3.1 Social cognitive theory as the overarching perspective of inuential behavior We argue that change agents’ inuential behavior across disciplines can be explained with commen- surable theories. We base our argument on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989) as the overarching theory of our model, which aims to explain how people regulate their behavior in social settings, re- lying on control and reinforcement. More specic, social cognitive theory distinguishes three models of agency: direct personal agency, proxy agency, and collective agency in an effort to control desired be- havior (Bandura, 2001b). Change leaders’ role in this sense is to help construct, lter, frame, and create fac- ticity (Hogg & Turner, 1987). Organizational change inevitably changes the workplace reality, which is where change agents help during the sensemaking process or “meaning construction” (Cornelissen & Durand, 2012). Weick (1995) highlighted that sense- making was enactive of sensible environments, on- going, driven by plausibility, social, and grounded in identity construction, suggesting that an individual would reconstruct their identity upon making sense of the new environment. This issue of identity con- struction remains a key problem, because individuals exposed to organizational change have to adapt their identity, or redene how they perceive themselves within the organization to accommodate this new and changed reality. Identity transitions through life and changing con- texts, where individuals seek identity salience inde- pendent from specic contexts (Ethier & Deaux, 1994). This quest for sensemaking and dening oneself is particularly difcult during turbulent times when contexts change unexpectedly, exposing an individ- ual to different types of perceived threats (Bandura, 1989). Apart from physical threats, individuals may also perceive identity threats, thus questioning their own capability to deal with such change. Some au- thors argue that even when dened within a specic context, identity is not a constant but a narrative: an evolving and integrative self-story that explains an individual’s role in the present and the future (e.g. Berzonsky, 2011). Ashforth et al. (2008) tack- led conceptual diversity of identity and identication by observing identication as a fuzzy set starting with the core of identity (self-denition, importance, and affect) and expanding this logic to identity-based behaviors. Observing the issue of sensemaking and identication during organizational change leads to- wards group membership and self-categorization. Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982) predicts behavior within a group, based on perceived status differences, ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 49 legitimacy, and the ability to change group member- ship. More specic, a change leader’s primary goal should be to inuence enough supporters to create a referent group, which would further inuence the rest of the organization via social identication mech- anisms. Among others, social identication leads to support for institutions that embody the identity and reinforces the antecedents of identication (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). 3.2 The importance of social identity theory in sensemaking Within the specic organizational change context, socialization and identity can be conceptualized as the formation of relational identity (Sluss & Ash- forth, 2007), which integrates person and role-based identities and different levels of self. Individual, in- terpersonal, and collective levels of self-represent a polyphony of epistemological paradigms and per- spectives through which individuals make sense of their environment (Epitropaki et al., 2017). Identi- ties are constructed through interaction (Weick, 1995); therefore, subjectively perceived relevant gures play an important role in fostering sensemaking and adapting self-schemas for individuals (Epitropaki et al., 2017). Self-schemas are dened as active, working structures and specic knowledge about the self within a context-specic domain (Epitropaki et al., 2017), which inevitably changes as that spe- cic context changes. In turbulent and ambiguous circumstances, people have a natural tendency to seek proximity and comfort with other people, typi- cally an authority gure (e.g. Mayseless, 2010). This sense-seeking behavior is similar to the parent–child relationship, where parents obtain the role of attach- ment gures responsible for alleviating stress and anxiety ambiguity causes (e.g. Berzonsky, 2011). The aforementioned suggests that change leaders serve a similar role as attachment gures during the emo- tionally intensive process of sensemaking during organizational change. Thus, change recipients turn to change leaders for additional resources during sensemaking and reinventing their self-schemas in an effort to gain a better understanding of newly de- sired behaviors and how their relational identity has changed. Affective processes of sensemaking have been long studied and linked to organizational change (Ban- dura, 1989), and emotional reactions could be per- ceived as an input to an outcome of the sensemaking process (Steigenberger, 2015). Perceiving threats trig- gers emotional reactions. When these emotions are not processed and adequately dealt with, they can derail the sensemaking process (Maitlis & Sonen- shein, 2010). Identity formation is a narrative and depends on personal perceptions combined with ex- ternal perceptions, implying that the identity-forming cycle of enaction-selection-retention is constant just like change is (Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010). It is inu- enced with social expectations (Ashforth et al., 2007), which inevitably place additional emotional strains, where individuals with lower group positions expe- rience higher levels of pressure to adapt their identity (Thoits, 1991). 3.3 Adult attachment formation during social identication triggered by sensegiving Bowlby and Ainsworth (2013) attachment theory addresses early life experiences in developing func- tional attachment relationships with at least one functioning parent and how they impact relation- ships in adulthood. Proximity-seeking is a natural response to threat perception and the survival instinct (Mayseless & Popper, 2007), and depending on how certain threats are perceived, individuals experience different emotional stress levels and seek out different levels of proximity (Mayseless, 2010). Interestingly, attachment to parental gures is inherently awed, because parents do not satisfy infants’ every affective requirement in an effort to build their self-sufciency (Mayseless & Popper, 2007). As a result of this awed relationships, certain affective needs remain unmet and a desire for an ideal attachment gure is created, which in turn sets the foundation for an individual’s attachment style (Coan, 2008). Parents as attach- ment gures and ultimate inuencers affect how individuals confront identity-constructing dilemmas (Berzonsky, 2011), which also impacts the way a leader–follower relationship will be constructed (Yip et al., 2018). Similar to the parent–child relationship, intensive communication and daily interactions de- velop the leader–follower relationship (Harrell-Levy & Kerpelman, 2010). As interdependency increases during organizational change, interpersonal attrac- tion develops, making an individual be perceived as a more valuable resource (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Seeking proximity in times of distress is a nat- ural reaction (Mawson, 2005), because the calming effect of being close to attachment gures stimulates dopamine and reduces negative emotions and anx- iety that panic or uncertainty causes (Coan, 2008). Individuals seek relatedness in their interpersonal relationships; therefore, leaders perceived as attach- ment gures can become idealized, depending on the combination of attachment styles (Davidovitz et al., 2007). For example, the leader’s avoidant attachment 50 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 style leads to different issues in interactions regard- less of the recipients’ attachment style, while the leader’s secure attachment style opens up space for a broad relationship-building cycle, regardless of the recipients’ attachment style (Davidovitz et al., 2007; Yip et al., 2018). In general, anxiously attached in- dividuals tend to be engaged in fewer functions and have lower needs for afliation and support, which interferes with everyday relationships at work (Richards & Schat, 2011). A stronger attachment to an individual suggests higher susceptibleness towards accepting novel in- formation. Such intense attachments can occur when an individual is responsive to a person’s needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence (La Guardia et al., 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). During organizational change, an individual’s need for affection closely re- sembles the parent–child relationship and determines to what extent the change leader as an attachment gure will be able to inuence the change recipients’ attitudes (Grady & Grady, 2013). Therefore, change leaders, as attachment gures, should leverage at- tachment and use ideological messages during the sensegiving process to address the change recipients’ psychological needs and inuence their identica- tion process. Susceptibleness towards an attachment gure’s attitudes and behaviors encourages identity modications (Fransen et al., 2015; Harms, 2011) and identication with the narrative is one of the most ef- cient methods of persuasion (De Graaf, 2014), along with symbols and metaphors (Hill & Levenhagen, 1995; Kolar, 2012; Pondy et al., 1983). 4 Towards a narrative-based process model of change leaders’ inuential behavior Organizational change is an emotionally inten- sive human experience. As change unfolds within the organization, it shifts the organization’s existing ideology and working environment, and both indi- viduals and groups have to adapt to this change. We aim to address the ultimate dilemma: Is it the chicken or the egg in terms of organizational change? In other words, are change leaders’ efforts a reaction to the ex- ternal pressure, or a proactive internal effort to affect the external environment? Regardless of the scenario, we argue that a change leader inevitably has to ex- perience personally this change as a recipient, before inuencing others. In fact, we argue that the change leader and the change recipient will experience the full emotional range of organizational change with primary and secondary appraisal as Liu and Perrewe (2005) suggested, but at different stages and with dif- ferent intensities. In terms of individual change, both the change leader and future change recipients go through a sim- ilar process of sensemaking. On the other hand, in terms of group change, change leaders are responsi- ble for the sensegiving process. This linked process consists of envisioning, signaling, revisioning, and energizing (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). We argue that individual sensemaking of organizational change acts as a prerequisite for meaningful group sensemaking of organizational change, where the role of being a change leader is uid and changes as change adop- tion increases. Sensemaking is an emotional process, triggered by some form disrupting the status quo or stable ow of activities within a certain environ- ment, which in turn arouses the autonomic nervous system (Weick, 1995). Maitlis and Sonenshein (2010) highlighted that shared meaning and emotion facil- itate a helpful and adaptive sensemaking process. Furthermore, Maitlis et al. (2013) argued that emo- tions signal the need and provide the energy that fuels sensemaking, and that emotions make sensemaking a more solitary or interpersonal process. Therefore, we build on Liu and Perrewe (2005) emotional and cog- nitive model by following the idea of reciprocity and sequential nature of sensegiving and sensemaking mechanics (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), while expand- ing our propositions with interdisciplinary insights on inuential behavior. 4.1 Leader as an individual making sense of organizational change As organizational change unfolds, ideological set- tings change either partially or completely and an individual can belong to a prochange group or a member of the change-resistant group. Generally speaking, an ideology represents a highly articulated, self-conscious belief and ritual system that seeks to offer a unique answer to the problems of social ac- tion and is an initial stage in developing a system of cultural meanings (Swidler, 1986). This aligns ideas, beliefs, and a commonly shared sense of purpose within a certain organization or social structure (e.g. Chin et al., 2021). Anew ideological setting may imply a different set of values, which in turn impact how the new organizational culture will shape expected behaviors through cultural norms. Gehman et al. (2013) depicted this “values work” mechanism in four separate phases, from resolving cases of concern to explaining how future behavioral uncertainties will be resolved. Such embodying aims to make the re- cipients’ sensemaking process as easy as possible, minimizing room for errors. As a result, change re- cipients are exposed to certain types of ideological messages, which may or may not necessarily inspire ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 51 Fig. 1. A process view of a change leader’s sensemaking mechanics (Change Internalization). change adoption (e.g. Grant & Hofmann, 2011). In the case of the initial change leader’s sensemaking, the sensegiving process results from ideological changes and respective cultural norms. The initial change recipient becomes the future change leader, by in- terpreting and making sense from contextual cues, instead of receiving direct ideological messages from the respective change leader, as is the case in Fig. 2. This perspective furthermore highlights the impor- tance of change leadership in organizational change, despite the fairly recent emergence of followership lit- erature directions. Aprocess view of a change leader’s sensemaking (change internalization) is displayed in Fig. 1. Ideologies require formalization. New ideological settings alter the existing ideology. Therefore, be- havioral expectations alter accordingly in order to complement the ongoing change. Among others, the sensemaking process relies on manifestations of organizational culture to convey such behavioral ex- pectations. Additionally, the change leader will be exposed to ideological messages aimed at conveying the importance of change and arising benets for the organization. To make sense of contextual changes and how to behave in the newly formed environment, the change leader seeks cues on behavioral expecta- tions from available information sources, considering forms and norms of organizational culture. Proposition 1: The initial change recipient (future change leader) relies on social learning in making sense of organizational change without being ex- posed to the sensegiving process from a respective change leader. Specically, the change leader’s own sensemaking process is essential for the construction of reality which will be the foundation for future sensegiving during organizational change. 4.1.1 Change recipient’s self-efcacy affects emotional reactions to organizational change Individual differences affect change perception. In terms of predicting individuals’ readiness to change, general self-efcacy is mentioned as a relevant di- mension (e.g. Bandura, 2001a). Self-efcacy is dened as belief in one’s capability to mobilize motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to address newly formed demands within a spe- cic context (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Depending on how an individual perceives their own capa- bilities to deal with the aforementioned demands affects how emotionally intensive a certain envi- ronmental event will be interpreted. The lower an individual’s self-efcacy is, the more stress and anx- iety will be experienced during change (Bandura, 1989). Individuals’ identities change through differ- ent experiences, particularly negative ones believed to build resilience (Weick, 1988), where individuals 52 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 with higher self-efcacy expose themselves to more challenging situations. More challenging situations create a stronger stimulus, which triggers the need to revise existing self-schemes (Epitropaki et al., 2017) and internalize identity-related modications (Weick, 2020). More specically, individuals feel condent about themselves when enacting particular roles, and generally feel that they are “real” or authen- tic when their person identities are veried, where self-efcacy is associated more closely with the be- havioral enactment of said identities (Stets & Burke, 2000). Chen et al. (2001) constructed a trait-like gen- eral self-efcacy scale covering Bandura’s original conceptualization primarily focusing on the level of magnitude (how difcult an assignment will be) and strength (the certainty of successfully dealing with the task). This perspective is particularly interesting given how certain studies highlight gender and age irrelevance when predicting individual readiness to change (e.g. Kunze et al., 2013). Interestingly, lower levels of self-efcacy are associated with lower levels of self-esteem, which is connected with the intention to leave a certain social group or perceive oneself as not being good enough to be a group member (Ethier & Deaux, 1994). Proposition 2: Individuals with lower general self-efcacy are more likely than individuals with higher general self-efcacy to perceive organizational change as a negative experience. 4.1.2 Emotional reactions affect the threat-benet perception of organizational change Organizational change is an emotional experience that triggers the revised conception of the organi- zation (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). This subjective sensemaking involves interpretation in conjunction with action—not just “pure” cognitive interpretation processes (Gioia et al., 1994). Internalizing avail- able information triggers emotional reactions and is an essential part of sensemaking, before conscious cognition (Bandura, 2001b). New information absorp- tion depends on existing knowledge, creating both intended and unintended meanings (Balogun & John- son, 2005), which further highlights the importance of persuasive narratives in organizational change. Emotions inuence how events are perceived (Maitlis et al., 2013), and Weick (1988) highlighted how inten- sive emotions affect the sensemaking process during turbulent and crisis situations. Zell (2003) mentioned how organizational change resembled the Kubler– Ross ve-stage model of grief, implying change recipients’ strong negative emotional reactions. One way to measure emotional reactions to organizational incidents is to link them to organizational goals or expectations, suggesting potential experienced reac- tions in a positive or negative sentiment (Fiebig & Kramer, 1998). Proposition 3: Individuals who perceive organiza- tional incidents as a negative experience are more likely to perceive lower benets and higher threat lev- els of proposed change than individuals who perceive organizational incidents as a positive experience. 4.1.3 Change recipients form customer-alike attitudes on organizational change benets Emotional reactions precede cognitive reactions, and therefore affect how a certain occurrence will be perceived (e.g. Hay et al., 2021; Liu & Perrewe, 2005). This antecedent relationship suggests that expecta- tions are a key element in creating meaning (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). In terms of sensemaking, there is a signicant ambivalence between belief and doubt, effectively impacting how benets and threats are perceived (Weick, 2020). Therefore, it comes as no surprise that utilizing hope is a powerful predic- tor of organizational change success (Steigenberger, 2015). An idealized future promises greater bene- ts than risks from threats, motivating individuals to pursue action. Drzensky et al. (2012) reported that benet perception played an important role in predicting readiness to change, and some studies suggest that creating mutual benets (the win–win perception of organizational change) is essential in ensuring successful implementation. McMillen and Fisher (1998) observed the perceived benets through eight subscales, including lifestyle changes, material gain, community closeness, and increases in self- efcacy. On the other hand, humans have a natural tendency to resist change and perceive it as threat (e.g. Oreg, 2003). These threats may not necessar- ily be perceived as physical danger, but as a threat to an individual’s identity or self-esteem (e.g. Ethier & Deaux, 1994). Cognitively interpreting these emo- tional reactions results in certain regularities of an in- dividual’s interpretation of the environment (Wicker, 1969), forming attitudes towards change, which cover a wide array of positive and negative statements about change (Vakola et al., 2013; Vakola & Niko- laou, 2005). Depending on how these attitudes are formed, an individual will more, or less, likely em- brace change. Proposition 4: Employees who perceive higher threat and lower benet from change are more likely to form positive attitudes towards change than those employees who perceive lower threat and higher benet. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 53 4.1.4 Individual’s readiness to change relies on attitudes and encourages social identication Attitudes about change affect individual readi- ness to change. More precisely, readiness to change measures to what extent individuals feel ready to ac- cept the new reality resulting from change (Repovš et al., 2019). Organizational change requires support from various organizational characteristics (Eby et al., 2000) as well as depends on established trust lev- els between employees and change leaders (Vakola et al., 2013), where trust and attachment to the change leader facilitate the sensemaking process (Harms, 2011). Similarly, the other side of the change adoption spectrum involves individual resistance to change re- sulting from cognitive rigidity, lack of psychological resilience, reluctance to give up old habits, etc. (Oreg, 2003). Overall, individual readiness to change affects employees’ self-reactiveness and self-reectiveness, which are essential parts of change agency and the subjective interpretation of change (Bandura, 2001a), effectively impacting the sensemaking process. Proposition 5: Employees who form positive atti- tudes towards change are more likely to perceive higher levels of individual readiness to change than those employees who form negative attitudes to- wards change. Ideologies depend on like-minded people to suc- ceed. Different levels of individual readiness to change among employees inevitably cause workplace logic conicts, causing irreconcilability, ambiguity, and contradictions among employees both individ- ually and interpersonally (Malhotra et al., 2021). As different perceptions of threats and benets affect attitudes towards organizational change, different narratives affect individuals’ sensemaking process and the general outcomes. Dealing with threats also can be perceived as an identity-forming event con- nected with self-efcacy, crucial for personal devel- opment and a part of the cognitive process individ- uals experience during sensemaking (Bandura, 1989). Identity-relevant experiences are events that threaten or enhance an identity the individual values highly (Thoits, 1991). Further, an essential part in negotiat- ing social identity in changing contexts is responding to different threats (Ethier & Deaux, 1994). During self-categorization and social identity renegotiation within the newly formed contextual surrounding, an individual adapts self-schemas in an effort to create a new self-story (Epitropaki et al., 2017). Contex- tual changes alter an organizational ideology and individuals tend to self-place themselves as mem- bers or opponents of ideological streams (Malka & Lelkes, 2010). Devine (2015) proposed a measure of ideological social identity as a combination of Mael and Tetrick (1992) identication with a psychological group or organization (IDPG) scale and ideological self-placement approaches, suggesting that the pres- ence of opposing ideological streams can be observed outside national politics. An individual’s willing- ness to identify ideologically as a member of the mainstream or an opposing group effectively marks the end of the sensemaking process and determines whether an individual will embrace or reject change stemming from this newly formed meaning. This process is constant, subjective, and ever-changing because the environment changes and triggers orga- nizational change. Proposition 6: Individuals with higher readiness to change are more likely than those with lower readiness to change to ideologically identify with the prochange social group within the organization. 4.2 The leader as an individual giving sense to organizational change for change recipients Change leaders are the initial change recipients. Following the change leader’s initial sensemaking process, organizational change requires mobilizing change recipients to sustain change momentum and ensure change adoption. On the other hand, sus- taining change adoption is also about understanding how multiple resistance manifestations affect change adoption (Alcadipani et al., 2018) and how to address cynicism fueling resistance to change (van Vuuren & Elving, 2008). In its essence, change leadership is more about future-making than it is about making sense of the past (Boje, 2012), where the change leader introduces revised interpretative schemes or systems of meaning through the sensegiving process (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Systems of meaning include using symbols as emotionally triggering segments of visual learning (Bandura, 2001a), which energizes myths and other forms of organizational culture aimed at improving an individual’s understanding of shared experiences towards a shared meaning (Boyce, 1996). These symbolic actions include storytelling (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991) as well as emphasize the im- portance of maintaining a follower focus aimed at effectively managing the symbolic interactionism in- volved in the sensemaking process (Epitropaki et al., 2017). Closely connected to the interpretation of avail- able cultural forms and norms, contextual framing gains force from cultural resonance (Werner & Cor- nelissen, 2014), while on the other hand, narratives draw on the power of sequencing resulting from managerial efforts to structure, compress, and plot a change process into a storyline (Logemann et al., 2019). The aforementioned perspectives suggest that 54 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 Fig. 2. A process view of a change leader’s sensegiving mechanics (Change Externalization). the sensegiving process involves a skilled creation of a narrative that aims to inuence change recipients’ sensemaking process of the newly changed ideology through utilizing emotionally engaging symbols. We argue that a change leader represents the embodi- ment of this ideological adjustments and initiates the sensegiving process after making sense of the ongo- ing organizational change (similar to Nishii & Paluch, 2018). More precisely, this process depicted in Fig. 2 is initiated after the change leader adjusts their own ideological social identication. Proposition 7: Change leaders who socially identify with the changed organizational ideology are more likely to exhibit higher levels of champion behavior than change leaders who do not socially identify with the changed organizational ideology. 4.2.1 Champion behavior affects the change leader’s perception as an attachment gure Successful change leaders demonstrate champion behavior. They are expected to inspire and mobi- lize change adoption across different organizational levels by utilizing available resources and inten- sively advocating for change in a meaningful way. Championing also involves participating in the goal- formation process, explaining, teaching, and motivat- ing others to become involved, as well as dealing with opposing forces that encourage change resis- tance (Howell & Higgins, 1990a). Although generally speaking, champions informally emerge in an orga- nization (e.g. Roberts, 1988; Škerlavaj et al., 2016) and decisively contribute with enthusiasm and advo- cating for change, formally assigned change leaders can also manifest champion behavior. Interestingly, ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 55 team-level innovation was weaker when high levels of supportive supervision were present, suggesting that champion behavior needs to be balanced in application (Krapež Trošt et al., 2016). Champion behavior includes: (a) creating a clear vision that em- phasizes benets, (b) displaying enthusiasm about change, (c) demonstrating commitment towards uti- lizing change, and (d) involving others in supporting change adoption (Howell et al., 2005). Acting as a true champion relates perceived competence to perceived personality traits (Zhang et al., 2020) and positions the change leader as an attachment gure, providing comfort and anxiety relief in times of turbulence or distress that change caused (Mawson, 2005). Proposition 8: Change leaders who exhibit higher levels of champion behavior are more likely to en- courage higher levels of psychological need satisfac- tion among change recipients than change leaders who exhibit lower levels of champion behavior. 4.2.2 Leadership inuence tactics affect the change leader’s perception as an attachment gure Successful change leaders utilize different inuence tactics. Although change leaders represent the em- bodiment of proposed change, successful inuential efforts require adaptability. Sensegiving is a process of inuencing contextual interpretations during the sensemaking process (Luscher et al., 2008), thus nat- urally the change leader’s effort plays an important role in forming attitudes about change and fostering social identication. Yukl and Tracey (1992) concep- tualized leadership inuence tactics as attempts to inuence the target person to comply with an unspec- ied request, to carry out a task, to provide assistance, to support or implement a proposed change, or to do a personal favor for the agent, essentially provid- ing an extension of demonstrated champion behavior. Such inuential attempts can affect how an individ- ual perceives the change leader, or forms attachment with a perceived and sometimes idealized human brand (Thomson, 2006). Leadership inuence tactics among others include (a) rational persuasion, (b) in- spirational appeal, (c) apprising, (d) ingratiation, and (e) consultation, where negative inuential behaviors are excluded (Yukl et al., 2008). Champion behavior represents a prosocial effort to improve or provide a benet for the organization, which is why typical dark triadic behaviors are not relevant for our understand- ing of the underlying mechanism of inuence (e.g. lying, distortion of evidence, bribes, blackmail). Proposition 9: Change leaders who exhibit higher levels of leadership inuence tactics are more likely to encourage higher levels of psychological need satis- faction among change recipients than change leaders who exhibit lower levels of leadership inuence tactics. 4.2.3 Narrative intelligence affects the change leader’s perception as an attachment gure Successful change leaders are storytellers. Regard- less of utilized leadership inuence tactics, change leaders intensively communicate with change recip- ients. Communications drive connections, and con- nections drive results (van Vuuren & Elving, 2008), while at the same time, connections may cause emo- tional fatigue when underutilized. Emotions play an essential role in triggering, shaping, and conclud- ing sensemaking (Maitlis et al., 2013), where the use of language in creating compelling narratives allows creating organizational realities that will be subjected to interpretation (Chreim, 2002). In developmental psychology, a narrative is considered as a way in which humans make sense of the world (Bruner, 1991) and narrative intelligence is the ability to tell the story of an individual’s life and the surrounding en- vironment (e.g. Randall, 1999). Linking the emotional power of narratives with sensemaking, Bers (2002) argued that identity-forming questions are answered by using different types of narratives: personal sto- ries, popular tales, and cultural myths. The same can be applied to organizational realities as previously elaborated. Conceptualizing narrative intelligence, Pishghadam et al. (2011) proposed: (a) emplotment, (b) characterization, (c) narration, (d) generation, and (e) thematization, thus suggesting that effective sto- rytellers create emotionally engaging stories utilizing said skills. Change leaders’ compelling narratives can engage change recipients through the mechanism of narrative transportation (Green & Brock, 2000), which may help alleviate anxiety and negative emotions as demonstrated in bibliotherapy (Betzalel & Shecht- man, 2010). Proposition 10: Change leaders who exhibit higher levels of narrative intelligence are more likely to encourage higher levels of psychological need satis- faction among change recipients than change leaders who exhibit lower levels of narrative intelligence. 4.2.4 Change leaders embody organizational change as human brands Change recipients conclude organizational change. Although change leaders can be perceived as initial triggers of organizational change, the interdepen- dency of the dyadic relationship of change agency remains the key unit of observation. Agency should be about shifting possibilities of change entailed in 56 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 reconguring boundary articulations and exclusions that are marked by those practices in enacting a causal structure (Barad, 2007), where change leaders sug- gest intervention points. This interdependency also affects identication during organizational change, where the change leaders’ role tends to shift when a change recipient starts to demonstrate champion be- haviors and advocate for change (e.g. Epitropaki et al., 2017). Leaders’ calming effect during organizational change and change recipients’ natural inclination to seek proximity in times of distress (Maitlis et al., 2013; Mawson, 2005) forms a dyadic attachment. Regard- less of how different attachment styles form more or less productive and effective relationships with se- cure attachment styles being the ideal (Davidovitz et al., 2007), satisfying psychological needs positively relates to attachment (e.g. La Guardia et al., 2000). Attachment styles depend on early life experiences that are inherently awed (Bowlby & Ainsworth, 2013; Davidovitz et al., 2007), making the principle of satisfying psychological needs helpful in understand- ing why change leaders tend to become idealized or antagonized as role models (Popper & Amit, 2009). This also claries how human brands inu- ence consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions (Thomson, 2006). Deci and Ryan (1995) measured autonomy, relatedness, and competence as funda- mental psychological needs that affect individuals’ self-determination, i.e. their motivation behind pur- suing certain actions. More precisely, (a) autonomy concerns people’s feelings of volition, agency, and initiative (e.g. Deci & Ryan, 1995); (b) relatedness concerns feelings connected with and cared for by an- other (e.g. Ryan, 1993); and (c) competence concerns people’s feelings of curiosity, challenge, and efcacy (e.g. Deci et al., 1975). Sensible change leaders form dyadic relationships where they respond in ways that promote a change recipient’s experienced satisfaction of these basic psychological needs, thus alleviating some of the anxiety and stress organizational change causes. Proposition 11: Change recipients who exhibit higher levels of psychological need satisfaction are more likely to positively relate to a change leader’s behavior and experience positive emotional reactions to organizational incidents than change recipients who exhibit lower levels of psychological need satisfaction. We argue the only difference between a change leader’s and change recipient’s sensemaking process is in the sensegiving phase. Thus, we conclude that the change recipient’s sensemaking process, which starts with emotional reactions to organizational change, remains identical to the previously elabo- rated process for the initial change leader. 5 Discussion Our interdisciplinary ndings suggest important theoretical implications for future organizational change research, in the hope of broadening and ad- vancing the discussion with new insights. First, we propose that organizational change is an ongoing and dynamic state with tangible triggers but intan- gible endings that effectively manifest as minor or major changes in organizational ideology. Regard- less of scale, organizational change naturally creates a polarized perspective, where either benet percep- tion or threat perception prevails within a certain group of employees. This results in the formation of a prochange group and a change resistant group that advocate for their ideological settings through carefully drafted narratives. Depending on how these groups are perceived within the organization, change recipients will decide which social group represents their perception of benets and threats stemming from proposed change. By introducing this perspec- tive on organizational change, we open additional space for interdisciplinary insights related to ide- ological settings, ideological messages, and overall ideological identication. Second, we build on the idea of the storytelling organization (e.g. Boje, 2012) by enriching this narra- tive with ideas from internal and external consumer behavior and identity adaptation (e.g. Ahmed et al., 2003; Carlson & Donavan, 2013; Thomson, 2006). We argue that change leaders become human brands and thus grow into a larger organizational change nar- rative, both as narrators responsible for sensegiving and as characters who experience sensemaking. This suggests a change leader’s role follows the sensegiv- ing and sensemaking cycles in the organization (e.g. Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), is uid, and changes as organizational change unfolds among change recip- ients. The general outcome of narratively intelligent change leadership is the facilitation of social identi- cation through emotional engagement, where change recipients can make sense of organizational change with minimum negative emotions. While our narrative-based process model sug- gests a prosocial orientation of change leadership where change leaders aim to create a positive change without coercion and destructive leadership inu- ence tactics, there are potentially negative aspects worth mentioning. Change leaders scoring high on narrative intelligence should be able to craft com- pelling stories that encourage identity transportation, which could in turn affect how individuals adapt ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 57 their self-schemas and identity. Overusing this skill could encourage change adoption at the expense of change recipients’ personal identity and induce negative emotions that effectively affect their well- being. Change leaders scoring high on champion behavior could be pursuing change adoption by any means necessary, closely resembling machiavellianis- tic behavior. While it is easy to exclude destructive leadership inuence tactics such as blackmail, co- ercion, pressure and legitimizing, overutilization of desired leadership inuence tactics can also turn de- structive. For example, prioritizing change adoption over change recipients’ wellbeing could turn a pos- itive inuence tactic of “inspirational appeal” into a manipulative tactic. And observing how religious cults operate illustrates how these narratively in- telligent change leaders excessively utilize prosocial inuence tactics disregarding their followers’ well- being. Expanding this insight with the phenomenon of limiting rationality through the corrective mecha- nism of social norms within a cultist group depicts a specically abusive context although portrayed through socially desirable behaviors instead of being directly destructive to followers. Interestingly, simi- lar behaviors have been identied in corporate cults, such as Enron, as mentioned in the chapter focused on interdisciplinary perspectives. This furthermore highlights the importance of incorporating ethical guidelines into organizational change programs, as excessive utilization of desired aspects of change lead- ership, storytelling and persuasive communication can easily result in undesired outcomes. 5.1 Theoretical contribution Our conceptual paper aimed to provide inter- disciplinary perspectives of storytelling as an op- erationalization of the sensegiving process, in an effort to enrich the existing understanding of or- ganizational change. Predominantly, we corrobo- rate the importance of social-cognitive theory (We- ick, 2020), more precisely the importance of the sensemaking-sensegiving mechanism during organi- zational change in an effort to minimize organiza- tional change failure. We suggest a commensurable theoretical perspective of organizational change that combines: (a) social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989) as the overarching foundation for the triggers of organizational change; (b) adult attachment theory (Bowlby & Ainsworth, 2013) as the foundation for the mediating mechanisms of organizational change; and (c) social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982) as the desired outcome of organizational change. This theoretical framework suggests that change recipients utilize social learning in order to make sense of ongoing change, and rely on change lead- ers to provide cues of desired behavior. During this sensegiving-sensemaking exchange between the change leader and change recipients, change lead- ers serve the role of being attachment gures during turbulent times, where different attachment style combinations condition different relationship qual- ity. The end result of change leaders is to encourage the formation of a prochange social identity, where change recipients want to identify with the prochange group that emphasizes perceived benets over per- ceived threats from proposed change. Additionally, our narrative-based process model advances core ideas suggested by Battilana and Cas- ciaro (2012), further explored through the paradigm of power in their latest work (Battilana & Casciaro, 2021), as we connect aforementioned commensurable theoretical perspectives. We propose that the utiliza- tion of storytelling and perception of change leaders as attachment gures are one of many inuential mechanisms that enable inuencing to occur. We ob- serve the dyad of change leader and change recipient and argue that the change leader’s inuence depends on the extent to which the change leader is perceived as an attachment gure. To meaningfully inuence this interpersonal perception, a change leader who exhibits a certain level of champion behavior (e.g. Howell et al., 2005) can use leadership inuence tactics (e.g. Yukl & Tracey, 1992) and narrative intelli- gence (e.g. Pishghadam et al., 2011) to inuence the extent to which champion behavior is perceived as benecial. Our paper shifts the well-established perspective of sensemaking within the eld of organizational be- havior, emphasizing the importance of sensegiving during organizational change. More specically, we highlight the role of storytelling in creating com- pelling narratives about change for change recipients, but also the importance of positioning the change leader within the narrative. Change leaders can inter- vene meaningfully during the sensegiving process of organizational change, and thus affect the way change recipients make sense of the altered ideological frame- work within the organization. 5.2 Practical implications Our propositions suggest interdisciplinary perspec- tives on the underlying mechanism of inuence, with a greater focus on the process, unlike the majority of the available literature focused on the sensemaking process of organizational change. In the modern era of social media inuencers and the rapidly growing democratization of power, perception becomes real- ity. Therefore, we argue that organizations could use 58 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 some of these interdisciplinary insights to empower their leaders and thereby reduce the failure rate of organizational change. First, the benets arising from organizational change need to be clearly presented to all change recipients in an emotionally engaging manner of in- ternal marketing, rather than presenting change as an urgent activity with no choice but to comply (e.g. Raq & Ahmed, 2000). This approach is consistent with Liu and Perrewe (2005) suggestions of primary and secondary appraisal with associated emotional responses as well as suggestions of compelling nar- ratives (e.g. Woodside et al., 2008) and persuasive argumentation (e.g. Tormala & Petty, 2002). Second, change leaders are the face of organizational change. They act as human brands that inuence attitudes by leveraging attachment (Thomson, 2006) and leading by example (e.g. Howell & Higgins, 1990b). By build- ing this metanarrative of organizational change and the change leader before actual change management efforts take place, change recipients will begin evalu- ating the change leader’s personal competence with a positive example. Finally, storytelling plays an important role in the emotional engagement of change recipients during the sensegiving process and therefore should be used in a meaningful and contextualized manner (e.g. Brown et al., 2009). Organizations that tell stories are more successful in conveying meaning and encourage individuals to negotiate their social identity, ensur- ing a more enjoyable and less stressful sensemaking process. 5.3 Directions for future research This conceptual paper introduces interdisciplinary perspectives. Therefore, a variety of directions for future research emerge with the goal of achieving parsimonious conclusions. First, our narrative-based process model considers the most cited research articles within the Web of Science, covering devel- opmental psychology, linguistics, political science, consumer psychology, and even religious studies as examples of extremely turbulent environment adopt- ing change. As an outcome of this research, we have identied the social cognitive theory as the overar- ching and foundation for our narrative-based model. Additionally, we have identied the social identity theory and adult attachment theory as commensu- rable theories. Future research may include different articles within identical research elds or event different research elds altogether, thus introducing varying theoretical perspectives into the conversation, e.g. our propositions are a result of the aforementioned literature research covering systematic literature re- views and empirical papers. Surely, our propositions should be tested empirically to validate how emo- tional valence affects threat and benet perception with individuals. One research venue could be to explore how suggested constructs are perceived by change leaders and change recipients, thus empiri- cally testing stated propositions. Analytic approach such as PROCESS could help identify psychological need satisfaction as the mediator or narrative intel- ligence as the moderator of proposed relationships. Another research venue could be to explore a multi- level approach and test emerging effects on individ- ual, group and organizational levels with sufciently wide samples on observed levels. When it comes to researching narratives during organizational change, qualitative research immediately comes to mind. By interviewing change leaders or change recipients, certain specic elements of stories could be identi- ed as important or emerging archetypes addressing roles and challenges during thematic analysis of or- ganizational change. Mixing these perspectives could be particularly interesting and informing, as testing conceptual relationships and enriching them with qualitative insights in various mixed method research designs could open up novel theoretical insights. Second, additional change leader’s effect on organi- zational change perception could be investigated by focusing more on coercion and change leaders’ dark triadic personality traits. More specically, whether the presence of dark triadic personality traits makes an impact on what leadership inuence tactics are utilized and how such change leaders are perceived by change recipients in different organizational con- texts. For example, narcissistic personality types may be perceived as more compelling change leaders, whereas psychopathic personality types may be per- ceived as less successful storytellers due to their lack of empathy which is considered as an important ele- ment of narratives. Altogether, the presence of specic dimensions of the dark triad could be helpful for practitioners in terms of planning their change agent networks for future projects. Additionally, our model is not primarily focused on planned organizational change and allows for emer- gent organizational change that change leaders drive without formal authority. Future research surely will identify additional space for meaningful change in- terventions and bring us closer towards a holistic understanding of inuential behavior. 6 Conclusion Organizational change is a complex and emotion- ally intense human endeavor. The human factor ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 59 plays an essential role in the results of organiza- tional change. Therefore, it is not surprising that a variety of approaches have been explored to date, highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary nd- ings. Our narrative-based process model synthesizes these ndings and highlights the ways in which in- terconnected ndings from different research areas advance the understanding of the mechanisms of change agents’ inuence. We have identied a com- mon theoretical foundation in the interdisciplinary literature from which we derived our conclusions, with the social cognitive theory as the overarching theoretical foundation, and the social identity theory and adult attachment theory as the auxiliary ones. First, interdisciplinary perspectives view organiza- tional change as an ongoing and dynamic process of sensegiving and sensemaking, which changes the organizational ideology. Ideological change relies on ideological messages that often lack emotional ap- peal, and it often draws on social norms to ensure ideological compliance. Second, change recipients act as consumers, but the expected benets of using the advocated product or service are not presented. When benets are not perceived, threat perceptions increase, further complicating the already emotion- ally intense sensemaking experience. Third, change leaders are attachment gures during the ambiguity of organizational change; change leaders serve as at- tachment gures, as change recipients seek proximity to mitigate negative emotional reactions that social identity adjustment causes. Finally, change leaders in- uence change adoption through prosocial methods rather than formal power by assuming the role of a human brand and telling stories to emotionally en- gage audiences during the sensegiving process. Acknowledgements This research was nancially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (www.arrs.gov.si) within the research program P5–0410. Corresponding au- thor Antonio Sadari´ c was included in the “Young Researchers” programme which is nanced by the Slovenian Research Agency (www.arrs.gov.si). The funders had no role in the study design, data collec- tion and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. References Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Mar- keting Research, 34(3), 347–356. Ahmed, P . K., Raq, M., & Saad, N. M. (2003). Internal marketing and the mediating role of organisational competencies. European Journal of Marketing, 37(9), 1221–1241. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 03090560310486960 Alcadipani, R., Hassard, J., & Islam, G. (2018). “I shot the sheriff”: Irony, sarcasm and the changing nature of workplace resistance. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1452–1487. Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(4), 390–404. Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J. L., & Shaq, H. (2012). Back to the future: Revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764–782. Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion. American Psychol- ogist, 54(11), 875. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identi- cation in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in organizational contexts. In G. P . Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychol- ogy 2007 (pp. 1–70). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9780470753378.ch1 Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102–1119. Bainbridge, W. S., & Stark, R. (1979). Cult formation: Three compat- ible models. Sociological Analysis, 40(4), 283–295. Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unin- tended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573–1601. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. Amer- ican Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. Bandura, A. (2001a). Social cognitive theory of mass communica- tion. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299. Bandura, A. (2001b). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspec- tive. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381–398. Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2021). Power, for all: How it really works and why it’s everyone’s business. Simon and Schuster. Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107. Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C., & Alexan- der, J. A. (2010). Leadership competencies for implementing planned organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 422–438. Beigi, M., Callahan, J., & Michaelson, C. (2019). A critical plot twist: Changing characters and foreshadowing the future of organiza- tional storytelling. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(4), 447–465. Bers, V . (2002). Tragedy and rhetoric. In I. Worthington (Ed.), Per- suasion: Greek rhetoric in action (pp. 188–207). Routledge. Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M., & Keller, R. T. (2006). Leadership and organizational learning: A multiple levels perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 577– 594. Berzonsky, M. D. (2011). A social-cognitive perspective on identity construction. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V . L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 55–76). Springer. Betzalel, N., & Shechtman, Z. (2010). Bibliotherapy treatment for children with adjustment difculties: A comparison of affec- tive and cognitive bibliotherapy. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 5(4), 426–439. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management inno- vation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 825–845. Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an ofce-supply rm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 106–126. 60 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 Boje, D. M. (2012). Reections: What does quantum physics of storytelling mean for change management? Journal of Change Management, 12(3), 253–271. Boyce, M. E. (1996). Organizational story and storytelling: A critical review. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(5), 5–26. Bowlby, J., & Ainsworth, M. (2013). The origins of attachment theory. Attachment Theory: Social, Developmental, and Clinical Per- spectives, 45, 759–775. Brown, A. D., Gabriel, Y., & Gherardi, S. (2009). Storytelling and change: An unfolding story. Organization, 16(3), 323–333. Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical In- quiry, 18(1), 1–21. Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engage- ment. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347. Campbell, B. (1978). A typology of cults. Sociological Analysis, 39(3), 228–240. Carlson, B. D., & Donavan, D. T. (2013). Human brands in sport: Athlete brand personality and identication. Journal of Sport Management, 27(3), 193–206. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efcacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identication and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69(2), 143–158. Chin, M., Zhang, S. X., Afshar Jahanshahi, A., & Nadkarni, S. (2021). Unpacking political ideology: CEO social and economic ideologies, strategic decision-making processes, and corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1213– 1235. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.1228 Chreim, S. (2002). Inuencing organizational identication during major change: A communication-based perspective. Human Re- lations, 55(9), 1117–1137. Coan, J. A. (2008). Toward a neuroscience of attachment. In J. Cassidy & P . R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 241–265). The Guil- ford Press. Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing proposi- tions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the chal- lenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1–9. Cornelissen, J., & Durand, R. (2012). More than just novelty: Con- ceptual blending and causality. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 152–154. Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreez- ing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69(1), 33–60. Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P . R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as attachment gures: Leaders’ attachment ori- entations predict leadership-related mental representations and followers’ performance and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 632–650. De Graaf, A. (2014). The effectiveness of adaptation of the protag- onist in narrative impact: Similarity inuences health beliefs through self-referencing. Human Communication Research, 40(1), 73–90. De Keyser, B., Guiette, A., & Vandenbempt, K. (2021). On the dynamics of failure in organizational change: A dialectical per- spective. Human Relations, 74(2), 234–257. Deci, E. L., Cascio, W. F., & Krusell, J. (1975). Cognitive evaluation theory and some comments on the Calder and Staw critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(1), 81–85. https:// doi.org/10.1037/h0076168 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efcacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–49). Springer. Delgadillo, Y., & Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative word-of-mouth communication: Exploring memory and attitude effects of con- sumer storytelling. NA - Advances in Consumer Research, 31(1), 186–192. Devine, C. J. (2015). Ideological social identity: Psychological at- tachment to ideological in-groups as a political phenomenon and a behavioral inuence. Political Behavior, 37(3), 509– 535. Drzensky, F., Egold, N., & van Dick, R. (2012). Ready for a change? A longitudinal study of antecedents, consequences and contin- gencies of readiness for change. Journal of Change Management, 12(1), 95–111. Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Per- ceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3), 419–442. Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R. G. (2017). Lead- ership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 104–129. Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identication and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 243–251. Fenton, N. (2008). Mediating hope: New media, politics and resis- tance. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 11(2), 230–248. Fergnani, A., & Song, Z. (2020). The six scenario archetypes frame- work: A systematic investigation of science ction lms set in the future. Futures, 124(9), 102645. Fiebig, G. V ., & Kramer, M. W. (1998). A framework for the study of emotions in organizational contexts. Management Communi- cation Quarterly, 11(4), 536–572. Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362– 377. Fransen, K., Haslam, S. A., Steffens, N. K., Vanbeselaere, N., De Cuyper, B., & Boen, F. (2015). Believing in “us”: Exploring lead- ers’ capacity to enhance team condence and performance by building a sense of shared social identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(1), 89–100. Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organiza- tional change: Managerial inuence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 453–462. Gehman, J., Treviño, L. K., & Garud, R. (2013). Values work: A pro- cess study of the emergence and performance of organizational values practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 84–112. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiv- ing in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448. Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and inuence. Organization Science, 5(3), 363–383. Goldman, L., & Hogg, M. A. (2016). Going to extremes for one’s group: The role of prototypicality and group acceptance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(9), 544–553. Grady, V . M., & Grady, J. D. III. (2013). The relationship of Bowlby’s attachment theory to the persistent failure of organizational change initiatives. Journal of Change Management, 13(2), 206–222. Grant, A. M., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Outsourcing inspiration: The performance effects of ideological messages from leaders and beneciaries. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 173–187. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. Greeneld, P . M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmen- tal Psychology, 45(2), 401–418. Gregory, R. J., Schwer Canning, S., Lee, T. W., & Wise, J. C. (2004). Cognitive bibliotherapy for depression: A Meta-Analysis. Pro- fessional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(3), 275–280. Harms, P . D. (2011). Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Hu- man Resource Management Review, 21(4), 285–296. Harrell-Levy, M. K., & Kerpelman, J. L. (2010). Identity process and transformative pedagogy: Teachers as agents of identity for- mation. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 10(2), 76–91. Harrison, S. H., Ashforth, B. E., & Corley, K. G. (2009). Organi- zational sacralization and sacrilege. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 225–254. Hay, G. J., Parker, S. K., & Luksyte, A. (2021). Making sense of organisational change failure: An identity lens. Human Relations, 74(2), 180–207. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 61 Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 755–778. Heracleous, L., & Bartunek, J. (2021). Organization change failure, deep structures and temporality: Appreciating wonderland. Human Relations, 74(2), 208–233. Hill, R. C., & Levenhagen, M. (1995). Metaphors and mental models: Sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative and en- trepreneurial activities. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1057–1074. Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and ap- plication of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 561– 567. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Person- ality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200. Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self- categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30. Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self- stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 325–340. Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational change: The systematic develop- ment of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232–255. Hope, O. (2010). The politics of middle management sensemaking and sensegiving. Journal of Change Management, 10(2), 195–215. Houran, J., Navik, S., & Zerrusen, K. (2005). Boundary functioning in celebrity worshippers. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(1), 237–248. Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990a). Champions of change: Identifying, understanding, and supporting champions of tech- nological innovations. Organizational Dynamics, 19(1), 40–55. Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990b). Leadership behaviors, inuence tactics, and career experiences of champions of tech- nological innovation. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(4), 249–264. Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M., & Higgins, C. A. (2005). Champions of product innovations: Dening, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 641–661. Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. (2010). Identity as narrative: Preva- lence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 135–154. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University Press. Kegan, R., Kegan, L. L. L. R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press. Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemak- ing: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 141–160. Kolar, T. (2012). Using metaphors as a tool for creative strate- gic sense-making. Economic and Business Review, 14(4), 275–297. https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1234 Krapež Trošt, J., Škerlavaj, M., & Anzengruber, J. (2016). The ability– motivation–opportunity framework for team innovation: Ef- cacy beliefs, proactive personalities, supportive supervision and team innovation. Economic and Business Review, 18(1), 77– 100. https://doi.org/10.15458/85451.17 Kulik, B. W., & Alarcon, M. (2016). Manipulative businesses: Secu- lar business cults. Business and Society Review, 121(2), 247–270. Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2013). Age, resistance to change, and job performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7/8), 741–760. La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulllment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 79(3), 367–384. Lalich, J. (2004). Bounded choice: True believers and charismatic cults. University of California Press. Liu, Y., & Perrewe, P . L. (2005). Another look at the role of emotion in the organizational change: A process model. Human Resource Management Review, 15(4), 263–280. Logemann, M., Piekkari, R., & Cornelissen, J. (2019). The sense of it all: Framing and narratives in sensegiving about a strategic change. Long Range Planning, 52(5), 101852–101901. Luscher, L. S., Lewis, M., & Ingram, A. (2008). The social construc- tion of organizational change paradoxes. Management, 19(4), 491–502. Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identication. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 813–824. Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551–580. Maitlis, S., Vogus, T. J., & Lawrence, T. B. (2013). Sensemaking and emotion in organizations. Organizational Psychology Review, 3(3), 222–247. Malhotra, N., Zietsma, C., Morris, T., & Smets, M. (2021). Handling resistance to change when societal and workplace logics con- ict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2), 475–520. Malka, A., & Lelkes, Y. (2010). More than ideology: Conservative– liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research, 23(2), 156–188. Mawson, A. R. (2005). Understanding mass panic and other collec- tive responses to threat and disaster. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 68(2), 95–113. Mayseless, O. (2010). Attachment and the leader—follower re- lationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(2), 271–280. Mayseless, O., & Popper, M. (2007). Reliance on leaders and social institutions: An attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 9(1), 73–93. McMillen, J. C., & Fisher, R. H. (1998). The perceived benet scales: Measuring perceived positive life changes after negative events. Social Work Research, 22(3), 173–187. Mento, A., Jones, R., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change manage- ment process: Grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 45–59. Nishii, L. H., & Paluch, R. M. (2018). Leaders as HR sensegivers: Four HR implementation behaviors that create strong HR sys- tems. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3), 319–323. Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual dif- ferences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680–693. Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organi- zational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101. Parker, C. P ., Dipboye, R. L., & Jackson, S. L. (1995). Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 21(5), 891–912. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding power in organizations. California Management Review, 34(2), 29–50. Pishghadam, R., Baghaei, P ., Shams, M. A., & Shamsaee, S. (2011). Construction and validation of a narrative intelligence scale with the Rasch rating scale model. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 8(1), 75–90. Pondy, L. R., Frost, P . J., Dandridge, T. C., Morgan, G., & Bacharach, S. B. (1983). Organizational symbolism (Vol. 1). JAI Press. Popper, M., & Amit, K. (2009). Attachment and leader’s develop- ment via experiences. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 749–763. Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspective to transformational leadership. The Lead- ership Quarterly, 14(1), 41–65. Pulizzi, J. (2012). The rise of storytelling as the new marketing. Publishing Research Quarterly, 28(2), 116–123. Raq, M., & Ahmed, P . K. (1993). The scope of internal marketing: Dening the boundary between marketing and human resource management. Journal of Marketing Management, 9(3), 219–232. Raq, M., & Ahmed, P . K. (2000). Advances in the internal mar- keting concept: Denition, synthesis and extension. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(6), 449–462. 62 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 Randall, W. L. (1999). Narrative intelligence and the novelty of our lives. Journal of Aging Studies, 13(1), 11–28. Reicher, S. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resis- tance, and change. Political Psychology, 25(6), 921–945. Repovš, E., Drnovšek, M., & Kaše, R. (2019). Change ready, re- sistant, or both? Exploring the concepts of individual change readiness and resistance to organizational change. Economic and Business Review, 21(2), 308–337. https://doi.org/10.15458/ 85451.82 Rhodes, C., & Brown, A. D. (2005). Narrative, organizations and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3), 167– 188. Richards, D. A., & Schat, A. C. (2011). Attachment at (not to) work: Applying attachment theory to explain individual behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 169–182. Roberts, E. B. (1988). What we’ve learned: Managing invention and innovation. Research-Technology Management, 31(1), 11–29. Rosenbaum, D., More, E., & Steane, P . (2018). Planned organi- sational change management: Forward to the past? An ex- ploratory literature review. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(2), 286–303. Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1413–1441. Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic. Developmen- tal Perspectives on Motivation, 40(1), 1–56. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Scammell, M. (2015). Politics and image: The conceptual value of branding. Journal of Political Marketing, 14(1–2), 7–18. Schwarz, G. M., Bouckenooghe, D., & Vakola, M. (2021). Organi- zational change failure: Framing the process of failing. Human Relations, 74(2), 159–179. Singer, M. T., & Lalich, J. (1995). Cults in our midst. Jossey- Bass/Wiley. Škerlavaj, M., ˇ Cerne, M., Dysvik, A., & Carlsen, A. (2016). Capital- izing on creativity at work: Fostering the implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Edward Elgar Publishing. Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identication: Dening ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 9–32. Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Do leaders’ inuence tactics relate to members’ helping behavior? It de- pends on the quality of the relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1194–1208. Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. S. (1979). Of churches, sects, and cults: Preliminary concepts for a theory of religious movements. Jour- nal for the Scientic Study of Religion, 117–131. Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. S. (1980). Networks of faith: Interper- sonal bonds and recruitment to cults and sects. American Journal of Sociology, 85(6), 1376–1395. Steigenberger, N. (2015). Emotions in sensemaking: A change management perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Man- agement, 28(3), 432–452. Stets, J.E., & Burke, P .J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224–237. Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 265–290. Stromberg, P . G. (1990). Ideological language in the transformation of identity. American Anthropologist, 92(1), 42–56. Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 639–661. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. Amer- ican Sociological Review, 273–286. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39. Tasselli, S., & Kilduff, M. (2021). Network agency. Academy of Man- agement Annals, 15(1), 68–110. Thoits, P . A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 101–112. Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Market- ing, 70(3), 104–119. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002). What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1298– 1313. Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 55(2), 147–172. Tourish, D., & Vatcha, N. (2005). Charismatic leadership and corpo- rate cultism at Enron: The elimination of dissent, the promotion of conformity and organizational collapse. Leadership, 1(4), 455– 480. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Fol- lowership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. (2016). Narratives as sources of stability and change in organizations: Approaches and direc- tions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 495–560. Vakola, M., Armenakis, A., & Oreg, S. (2013). Reactions to organi- zational change from an individual differences perspective: A review of empirical research. In S. Oreg, A. Michel, & R. T. (Eds.), The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp. 95–122). Cambridge University Press. Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the role of employees’ stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27(2), 160–174. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540. van Vuuren, M., & Elving, W. J. (2008). Communication, sense- making and change as a chord of three strands: Practical implications and a research agenda for communicating orga- nizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(3), 349–359. Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305–317. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage. Weick, K. E. (2012). Organized sensemaking: A commentary on processes of interpretive work. Human Relations, 65(1), 141–153. Weick, K. E. (2020). Sensemaking, organizing, and surpassing: A handoff. Journal of Management Studies, 57(7), 1420–1431. Werner, M. D., & Cornelissen, J. P . (2014). Framing the change: Switching and blending frames and their role in instigating institutional change. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1449–1472. Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 41–78. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of orga- nizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384. Woodside, A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008). When consumers and brands talk: Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 97–145. Yip, J., Ehrhardt, K., Black, H., & Walker, D. O. (2018). Attachment theory at work: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 185–198. Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Religiosity as identity: Toward an understanding of religion from a social identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 60–71. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Inuence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral inuence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 132–140. Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of inuence behavior for managers. Group & Organization Management, 18(1), 5–28. Yukl, G., Guinan, P . J., & Soitolano, D. (1995). Inuence tactics used for different objectives with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group & Organization Management, 20(3), 272–296. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:41–63 63 Yukl, G., Seifert, C. F., & Chavez, C. (2008). Validation of the extended inuence behavior questionnaire. The Leadership Quar- terly, 19(5), 609–621. Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of inuence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 525–535. Zell, D. (2003). Organizational change as a process of death, dying, and rebirth. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 73– 96. Zhang, M. J., Law, K. S., & Wang, L. (2020). The risks and benets of initiating change at work: Social consequences for proactive em- ployees who take charge. Personnel Psychology, 74(3), 721–750.