Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
A Study on the Design of Incentive Contracts for Platform Economy Regulation Based on Dual Principal–Agents
Previous Article in Journal
How Digitalization and Sustainability Promote Digital Green Innovation for Industry 5.0 through Capability Reconfiguration: Strategically Oriented Insights
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Systems
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/systems12090342
systems-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comprehensive Study of Critical Areas of Change Management as a Starting Point for Leaders in the Area of Managing Human Resources in Organizations: The Case of the Visegrad Four

by
Zuzana Rosnerova
1,*,
Olga Ponisciakova
1,
Eva Kicova
1 and
Juraj Fabus
2
1
Department of Economics, Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications, University of Zilina, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia
2
Department of Communications, Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications, University of Zilina, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Systems 2024, 12(9), 342; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090342
Submission received: 29 July 2024 / Revised: 20 August 2024 / Accepted: 29 August 2024 / Published: 1 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Systems Theory and Methodology)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Bibliographic map related to the term “change management”. Source: authors’ research in the VosViewer program.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Representation of production companies according to the country in which they operate. Source: authors’ research.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Categorization of respondents according to the size of enterprises resulting from the number of employees in the enterprise. Source: authors’ research<b>.</b></p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: This research deals with an element of strategic management, namely corporate changes. It applies to production enterprises operating in the countries of the Visegrad Group. Since similar studies in the area of change management in the V4 environment are absent, we consider the research to be beneficial for the subject area. The aim of the paper is to identify key elements in change management that would contribute to improving the work of leaders. (2) Methods: We conducted the research on a sample of 318 manufacturing companies operating in V4 countries. We verified the obtained data using several tests, including Chi-square tests and Fisher’s exact test or binomial test, through which we verified established research hypotheses. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was also used, which made it possible to identify critical factors in the area of change management. (3) Results: Critical change management factors emerged from the research, and we also determined the preconditions for successful management of these initiatives. We consider the results significant for change management leaders. (4) We consider the findings to be a contribution to the given field of management, as similar studies are absent in it, which creates a gap in this field.

1. Introduction

The current business environment is marked by many crises that businesses must face. To do so, they implement changes to withstand new circumstances. Changes in the business environment are ever faster and constantly pose new challenges for businesses [1]. Globalization played a large part in this, bringing many changes to the business environment [2]. The aim of this contribution is the identification of factors conditioning the improvement of the management of corporate changes. In order to fulfill the goal, we focused on examining several elements. Among these elements, we included the following: the importance of work teams, the importance of an independent management element, defining specific goals and purposes for the changes under consideration, informing employees about changes, monitoring the change management process, interest in the opinions of employees in the context of solving changes and their real use, improving the competences of employees during the implementation of changes through educational programs, and interest in employee satisfaction in the working environment after the changes have been achieved. In order to fulfill the goal, we applied the issue to the Visegrad Four region, of which the Slovak Republic is a part. Within V4, we detected an absence of interest in this area. Based on the key term “change management”, we created a bibliographic map based on scientific contributions. Through this map, we aim to illustrate that the area of corporate change management is not sufficiently researched in the case of the V4 countries, thus creating a significant gap in existing research. We used the VosViewer program to create the bibliographic map. We targeted terminology in the economic categorization. After filtering the results, we obtained 4401 scientific publications in the economic field. Figure 1 discusses the results.
Based on the results, we can conclude that “change management” is really only a small part of V4 solutions. The greatest attention on this topic is given to the USA, England, Australia, Germany, Romania, Italy, and the Netherlands. As can be seen from this map and its clusters, in the V4 countries, this topic is only minimally addressed. That is why we consider this area to be a gap in the research, and our goal is a closer identification of factors in the field of change management.
During the last few decades, mainly thanks to growing globalization, the need for changes and their implementation in new organizational concepts began to appear in all sectors. Therefore, companies had to pay more attention to changes and gradually introduce them into their practices, which resulted from the development of markets and the arrival of new competitors in the market environment [3]. Change management can be defined as a complex of approaches through which the shortcomings of the company are eliminated. It is a part of management that strives to build the competitiveness of the company through the implementation of changes [4]. The author Garrido [5] describes competitiveness as the increasing pressure exerted on the market between different producers competing in the same market sector when demand or supply increases and the number of competitors also increases. Competitiveness represents the ability of businesses to compete, act, and survive in a competitive environment. At the same time, competitiveness is the ability to achieve or maintain a competitive advantage [6]. According to Kuzminski et al. [7], competitiveness can be understood as the ability to take quick and adequate measures to effectively manage resources.

1.1. The Essence of Change Management

Change management is an organizational process that should enable company employees to accept changes in their work environment. In the case of corporate change, the change consists in the transformation of an individual company, structure, technology, or organization [8]. Change management is an inseparable part of the work of every manager, who must be able to deal with changes in structure, technology, and individuals [9]. Brown et al. [8] argue that the concept of enterprise change management should evolve simultaneously with knowledge management. In this area, there are certain foundations that form a “building block” for managing the implementation of changes. They include, for example, the setting of management policy to such an extent that mutual communication between the individual sections of the enterprise will be enabled. At the same time, it is true that the transformation of the company cannot be directed and forced from the highest level of management downwards, but it is necessary to prepare the internal environment so that the need for changes is supported by all parties involved [8,10]. We can define change management as a process that coordinates changes and facilitates their implementation at any corporate level [11]. In a business environment, we can see it as a change at the project level or at the team level, or it can focus on work processes or systems [12]. Research by the authors Keller and Schaninger [13] dealt with the question of how change leaders take into account the comments and opinions of employees in the process of corporate change. The result of their research was the finding that change leaders who were interested in the opinions of employees were four times more likely to have change implementation programs successfully implemented than change leaders who were not interested in the opinions and mindsets of employees during the implementation of a corporate change program. According to Marrucci et al. [14], corporate change is a complex process that is also associated with a certain risk of failure. Many companies attempt to solve problems related to change projects too late, so that they ultimately fail and do not show the expected results of the change [15]. The authors Ettlie et al. [16], in their research, compared the factors of the current market environment with the introduced changes. Their finding was that dynamic business changes can work independently and can thus support the long-term sustainability of a business in the market environment. Other scientific studies emphasize that most corporate change initiatives fail, with an estimated failure rate of 50–70% [17,18,19]. Such a high failure rate of business change projects implies various risks. The goal of introducing any change should be to reduce the risk of failure and increase the tendency for the success of the implemented change [20]. According to Rafferty [20], corporate change will be successful only based on this condition. Business change can also be understood in a process context when the business moves from its current state to a new state through the necessary change. This is desirable for the company, while the change is aimed at increasing the efficiency of business processes. In this context, the goal is also to search for ways through which a higher value of the company is created in the market environment [21]. In this case, change management ensures the process of guiding the corporate change to its implementation, from the earliest stages of conception and preparation of the change through its implementation to its solution. According to Miller [22], we can divide the business change process into five steps: (1) preparing the business for change, (2) creating a plan and vision, (3) implementing the change, (4) incorporating the change into the corporate culture and procedures, and (5) controlling progress and analyzing results.

1.2. Critical Aspects of Corporate Change Management

According to Al-Haddad and Kotnour [23], any corporate change takes place over time, so it is necessary to first carefully plan the change, define its time frame, and analyze all critical factors that can affect the success of implementing the corporate change in the internal environment. According to Al-Haddad and Kotnour [23], the critical factors of business change include time, employees, teamwork, communication, and a change management program. Time is a critical factor in change management. It is very important for the company to know at which moment it starts the given change. If management waits for the change and implements it later, it may not have the desired effect [24]. Another important critical factor is the employees. When managing change, the company must ensure that only the best people are secured for each job, and at the same time, the company must be able to retain such people [25]. According to Ramosaj et al. [26], corporate change is related to issues of internal organization and is also carried out in the context of the external competitive, economic, and social environment and the internal resources of the enterprise, including skills, culture, structure, and systems. According to Sittrop and Crosthwaite [27], other critical elements of corporate change management must also be considered, including people’s resistance to change, leadership support for the change program, teamwork dynamics, and corporate communication. Successful implementation of business changes requires an in-depth analysis of these important factors in their formulation and planning. In 2021, the authors Mac Carte and Farina [28] carried out research in which they measured the maturity of corporate changes. In the research, they focused on examining the critical factors of corporate change, among which they included the following four factors: corporate culture, capabilities, the drive for continuous improvement, and leadership, i.e., the management of corporate change. In connection with the analysis of critical factors, we can claim that these are general factors in the framework of introducing corporate changes. Payne et al. [29] also agree with the stated opinion about the influence of critical factors and argue that it is more of a general perception. When introducing a business change, it is important to analyze employees and management, but it is also necessary to monitor business risks related to the management of relations with partners and customers of the company [16,27]. Belias and Koustelios [24] express the opinion that there are frequent failures in the process of change that result from the reluctance of employees to cooperate on company changes, which leads to the development of resistance to these changes.

1.3. Business Change Management Models and the Definition of Their Elements

In the field of corporate change management, several models have been created that integrate various principles and theories [11]. Kurt Lewin’s model, which was created in 1948, and John P. Kotter’s model, which dates from 1995, are considered the basic models in the field of corporate change [30,31]. Each of the models created so far contains other components that differ when comparing these models [32]. However, the models that were created for this area do not actually integrate the entire complex of factors on which the success of corporate change currently depends [33]. Lewin’s model includes three important elements, which are the unfreezing of the original business practices, the transition to other forms, and the freezing of the new state. In the first phase, Lewin’s model emphasizes the creation of pressure to initiate corporate change. In the second phase, communication between members of the change is very important, and the third phase consists of creating a new corporate culture, adopting new practices, and freezing new procedures [18,34]. Kotter’s model integrates the following elements: raising awareness of the urgency of change, building a coalition for managing change, identifying a vision and change strategy, communicating change; delegating tasks, creating short-term wins, using results, and supporting further changes by embedding new approaches in business practice. From the point of view of the concepts of the mentioned models, their interconnection lies in the aspects of communication, time sensitivity, and knowledge, which we could consider as the common theoretical starting points of Lewin’s and Kotter’s models of corporate change management [35]. Scientific articles point to the fact that, even if there are other models for solving the change process, they represent a kind of “superstructure” or equivalent to Lewin’s model, as they rely on the phases of Lewin’s model, which are subsequently supplemented by other steps [33,36,37,38]. The authors Parry et al. [39] distinguish between two basic categories of models for change management, namely, process and descriptive models, which are characterized by certain differences. The process model provides an overview of the steps important for the implementation and management of business changes. This group of models can include Lewin’s three-phase model or Kotter’s eight-step model, as well as other models, such as the ADKAR model and the Mento model [18,30,37,40,41]. The ADKAR model integrates the following elements: awareness of change, willingness to support change, acquisition and expansion of knowledge, skills of employees for implementing change, strengthening change, and its acceptance [42]. The Mento model includes the following 12 steps: (1) determining the change idea and its content, (2) defining the change initiative, (3) assessing the environment for change, (4) developing a change plan, (5) identifying the change sponsor, (6) preparing beneficiaries of the change, (7) creating cultural potential, (8) creating and selecting an appropriate change management team, (9) creating small wins for motivation, (10) continuous and strategic communication of the change, (11) measuring the progress of the change effort, and (12) integrating the acquired experience [43]. In the case of descriptive models, the main variables are defined, as are the factors that influence the performance of the company and the success of the introduced change. The Leavitt model, McKinsey 7S model, and Burke–Litwin model are examples of this category [35,44,45,46]. Leavitt’s model includes factors such as people, managerial roles, technology, and structure [47,48]. The McKinsey 7S model integrates seven factors: strategies, structure, systems, shared values, style, group, and capabilities [35]. The Burke–Litwin model contains the following factors, which the authors of this model identified as dimensions: mission and strategy, company leadership, corporate culture, structure, management practices, systems, the climate of work units, tasks and skills of workers, motivation, individual needs and values, and individual and overall performance in the change process [49]. Even though several models of change management have been created, with the dynamic development of the business environment, there is still a need to identify the critical factors of change and manage them for businesses to be successful in their change initiatives [18].

2. Materials and Methods

In this contribution, we analyze which preconditions for the management of corporate change are statistically significant and how the successful achievement of the results of corporate change initiatives depends on them. In addition to the analysis of the significance of the factors, we will find out which approach to business change management currently prevails in the V4 markets, and then we will deal with the identification of critical factors that dominate the identified approach to business change management.

2.1. Determining the Size of the Statistical Sample

The statistical set consists of production enterprises in the countries of the Visegrad Four. A statistical unit is one production enterprise operating in the territory of one of the Visegrad Four countries. The statistical element is the implementation of a business change, in which the statistical unit wants to streamline internal business processes and minimize risks that may affect its market operations. In order to obtain valuable data, we used a non-standardized questionnaire method. The content of the questionnaire covered several key areas. The first questions were used to find out basic data about the companies. In this part, we investigated the nature of the company and the place where it operates. Other questions served as a closer specification of the area of corporate change management in those companies, as we were interested in many elements. The subjects of our interest included the nature of the changes implemented by the company, further key priorities for the growth of competitiveness, the implementation of changes from the point of view of personnel integration, familiarization of employees before the implementation of the company change, identification of aspects that are considered by the management to be critical from the point of view of practice, and the relevance of attributes relating to the field of business change management in connection with their real use (defined as preconditions for business change management). We also investigated the form of management of corporate changes, specifically what approach the management will take to the implementation of changes. In this case, we investigated the following approaches: emergent, regular business change management, and continuous business change management. We also investigated what results the leaders encountered after implementing the changes—that is, how satisfied they were with the results. Before conducting the inquiry itself, we conducted a pilot, through which we ensured the comprehensibility and clarity of the questions. Only then did we distribute the questionnaire in electronic form using the online platform Google Forms among manufacturing companies operating in the countries of the Visegrad Four. We conducted the survey in the period from 1 May 2023 to 30 September 2023.
Before determining the size of the statistical sample, we identified the number of manufacturing enterprises in the countries of the Visegrad Four. To do this, we used the HitHorizons database (2022) and the sectoral division of enterprises. According to this database, we identified the total number of enterprises in the individual countries of the Visegrad Four, defined the number of manufacturing enterprises, and calculated the percentage representation of manufacturing enterprises among the total number of enterprises operating in each country.
In Table 1, we have shown the number of companies in the individual countries of the Visegrad Four as of 31 December 2022. The values listed in Table 1 served as the basis for the calculation of the relevant statistical sample.
According to the data from Table 1, we see that of the total number of companies operating on the V4 market, manufacturing companies make up 27.9%, i.e., 280,049 enterprises. The values listed in Table 1 are the starting point for calculating the statistical sample of our research.
From the total number of production enterprises listed in Table 1, we calculated the relevant size of the statistical sample of enterprises according to the mathematical relationship below. We defined 4 key variables in the formula, which are the size of the sample, the Z value from the statistical tables, the proportion of the character for unknown values, and the permissible range of errors. We determined the relevant statistical sample size according to the following mathematical relationship:
n = Z 2 · p · ( 1 − p ) c 2
where:
  • Z: value from statistical tables,
  • p: share of the character,
  • c: permissible range of errors,
  • n: sample size.
We set the confidence level at 95%, which corresponds to a Z value of 1.96. We set the character share for unknown values to 0.5. We allow a deviation of 5%. We determined the result as follows:
n = 1.96 2   ·     0.5   ·     ( 1 − 0.5 ) 0.05 2   n = 384
According to the result, the relevant statistical sample size is 384 respondents. From the total number of production enterprises listed in Table 1, we approached 5600 enterprises. The total return of correctly filled questionnaires was 318. The return rate of the questionnaire can be defined at 5.68%. In December 2021, a scientific article was published in which the authors Mac Carte and Farina [28] dealt with the issue of corporate change management maturity and obtained an index for determining corporate change management maturity from the research. The research of these authors was carried out on a sample of 151 manufacturing enterprises, and the authors classified this sample as useful in relation to the results of their research, which took the form of a non-standardized questionnaire. Considering that the number of correct answers obtained from the respondents in our case is 318, we consider this sample to be sufficient and relevant, since the mentioned authors applied their research to the management of corporate changes on a sample of only 151 manufacturing companies.

2.2. Determination of Research Hypotheses

To fulfill the main goal of the research, we defined two hypotheses. In the first hypothesis, we investigated which preconditions are significant in the current market environment for managing initiatives to achieve corporate changes. In the second hypothesis, we verified which approach to the management of corporate changes prevails in the current period. As the present time is marked by a crisis, we assume that most companies proceed emergently in the management of changes, i.e., they start dealing with changes at the moment when the stimulus that causes the change appears. For the approach that currently dominates within the management of corporate changes, we will subsequently find out which critical factors are relevant for the given approach and take into account the current events in the V4 markets. We also defined a null hypothesis for each hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1:
H1: Each of the preconditions of management of managerial business changes is significant for achieving satisfaction with the results of business changes.
H1-0: Each of the managerial business change management preconditions is insignificant for achieving satisfaction with the results of business changes.
For the mentioned hypothesis, we also set the preconditions under which we will verify the given hypothesis. The preconditions for verifying the validity of the hypothesis are as follows:
  • Working teams operate in the company for the purpose of managing corporate changes;
  • The change management section operates in the company for the purpose of managing corporate changes;
  • Business change always has a specific purpose and goal that needs to be achieved;
  • Employees are always familiar with the change plan and its impacts (both positive and negative);
  • During the course of the business change process, data are collected about the course of this process;
  • Concern for employees’ opinions, attitudes, needs, and problems when implementing changes;
  • Employees are given a space to express their ideas and thoughts that could be a potential reason for the implementation of the change;
  • It is possible to implement new ideas and thoughts from employees into corporate practice;
  • Training and other development programs are provided to the employees, which help them adopt the new way of working that the company change requires;
  • After achieving the change, we are interested in the feelings of the employees and want to find out if they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the new procedures.
Hypothesis 2:
H2: In the current market environment, emergent business changes dominate over continuous changes.
H2-0: In the current market environment, emergent business changes do not dominate over continuous changes.

2.3. Definition of Research Methods

In order to verify the research hypotheses, the statistical program IBM SPSS Statistics was used. As part of the verification of the research hypotheses, the following methods were specifically used:
Pearson’s Chi-square test: We used this in the cross-tabulation analysis. Through this test, we determined whether there is a dependency between the selected categorical variables.
Cramer’s V: This is a contingency coefficient based on which we can measure the strength of dependence of two categorical variables. We evaluate the results based on the p-value, which represents the sign of the significance test. It is true that if the p-value is close to 0, it means that there is a relationship between the investigated variables. As for the test result, we interpret it as follows:
  • if the test result ranges from 0 to 0.3—there is a weak dependence between the investigated variables.
  • if the test result ranges from 0.3 to 0.8—there is a moderately strong dependence between the variables,
  • if the test result ranges from 0.8 to 1—there is a strong dependence between the variables.
If p ≤ α, then we reject the null hypothesis, because the lower the p-value, the less acceptable the null hypothesis.
Fisher exact test: This test is used in cases where the condition that 100% of all counts must be greater than 5 and none can be zero is not met. In this case, the Fisher exact test calculates p-values by finding the probabilities of all possible combinations in the contingency table that have the same marginal sums or are equal to or are more extreme than the observed ones [47]. If the Fisher exact test is used, it is recommended to interpret the strength of dependence through the result of the contingency coefficient Phi instead of Cramer’s V coefficient.
Binomial test: This is a one-sample test that is used to assess whether an observed proportion derived from a single random sample differs from the expected parametric proportion, and is also referred to as a test of agreement of the proportion of the trait at a predetermined constant. In this test, we work with two categories while we find out whether the share of measurements in the case of one of the selected categories will be equal to the constant that we set in advance.
MANOVA: This is a multivariate analysis of variance used to test the statistical significance of the effect of one or more independent variables on a set of two or more dependent variables. We used the MANOVA method to identify critical factors for the identified dominant approach to corporate change management.

3. Results

In the following part of the article, we define the results of the conducted survey. As stated in Chapter 2, as part of the research, we approached a total of 5600 production enterprises. The return rate was 318 correctly completed questionnaires from production companies operating in the countries of the Visegrad Four (Slovak Republic, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland). In Figure 2, we have shown the percentage and numerical representation of companies from individual countries of the Visegrad Four that participated in the research.
From the above figure, it follows that the largest share of questionnaire returns was from the Slovak Republic, at 109, which represents 34%. We recorded the second-largest return from the Czech Republic, where 86 completed questionnaires were returned to us, which represents 27%. From Hungary, the return was 57 enterprises, which represents an 18% share. The share of respondents from Poland was 21%, which in absolute terms represents 66 enterprises.
The characteristics of the respondents, which in the case of our research were manufacturing companies operating on the markets of V4 countries, are shown in the Figure 3. We categorized respondents according to size, which results from the number of employees. The manufacturing businesses we analyzed fall into the following areas: metal manufacturing and processing, electrical equipment manufacturing, furniture manufacturing, machinery and equipment manufacturing, food and beverage manufacturing, chemical and plastic manufacturing, motor vehicle manufacturing, textile manufacturing, and paper manufacturing.

3.1. Preconditions for Successful Management of Business Changes and Their Statistical Significance

Based on theoretical knowledge, we compiled 10 preconditions that make up the elements of corporate change management, which were mentioned by foreign authors as important in their implementation. Our goal was to find out to what extent the proposed preconditions of corporate change management are significant from the point of view of manufacturing companies operating in the V4 countries. In hypothesis H1, we examined whether there is a dependence between the preconditions of corporate change management, which should be part of such management, and the resulting satisfaction with the implemented change. The evaluation of this hypothesis required a partial evaluation of each of the investigated preconditions and its importance for achieving satisfaction with the results of business changes separately.
(A).
Precondition 1: Work teams operate in the company for the purpose of managing corporate changes;
(B).
Precondition 2: A change management section operates in the company for the purpose of managing corporate changes;
(C).
Precondition 3: Business change always has a defined purpose and goal that needs to be achieved;
(D).
Precondition 4: Employees are always familiar with the change plan and its impacts (both positive and negative);
(E).
Precondition 5: During the course of the business change process, data are collected about the progress of this process;
(F).
Precondition 6: Interest in the opinions, attitudes, needs, and problems of employees in the implementation of corporate changes;
(G).
Premise 7: Employees are given a space to express their ideas, thoughts that could be a potential reason for the implementation of the change;
(H).
Precondition 8: It is possible to implement new ideas and thoughts of employees into business practice;
(I).
Precondition 9: Employees are provided training, coaching, and other development programs to help them learn the new way of working that the business change requires;
(J).
Precondition 10: After achieving the change, we are interested in the feelings of the employees and finding out whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the new procedures.
The results of the statistical verification of each of the mentioned preconditions are presented in the following Table 2. In the event that the statistical evaluation showed a p-value lower than the established level of significance (α = 0.05), we proceeded to identify the strength of the dependence. The X symbol means that the assumption is not statistically significant, and the ✓ symbol means that the investigated assumption is statistically significant and shows the strength of dependence.
The result of the verification of hypothesis H1 is: Based on the evaluation of each of the 10 preconditions of corporate change management and their impact on satisfaction with changes, we can verify the confirmation or non-confirmation of the established hypothesis H1. Since we found that only 5 out of 10 preconditions of corporate change management show a statistically significant dependence on satisfaction with change outcomes, we accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis.
We reject
H1: Each of the preconditions of corporate change management is significant for achieving satisfaction with the results of corporate change.
We accept
H1-0: Each of the preconditions of corporate change management is not significant for achieving satisfaction with the results of corporate change.
From the results of the statistical verification, it is clear that the following preconditions for the management of corporate changes have proven to be statistically significant:
  • business change always has a defined purpose and goal that needs to be achieved,
  • employees are always familiar with the change plan and its impacts (both positive and negative),
  • during the course of the business change process, data are collected about the progress of this process,
  • interest in the opinions, attitudes, needs, and problems of employees in the implementation of corporate changes,
  • after achieving the change, we are interested in the feelings of the employees and finding out whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the new procedures.
We found out whether the leaders of the mentioned production enterprises operating in V4 implement in practice the 10 preconditions for the management of corporate changes. Subsequently, we assessed the obtained results in the context of the leaders’ satisfaction with the final effects of the change initiatives. In the case where one of the preconditions did not turn out to be statistically significant, we attribute this result to the fact that the leaders did not record satisfaction with the final result for the given factors.

3.2. Dominant Approach to Business Change Management

In order to find out which approach to corporate change management currently prevails, we verified the second hypothesis. Due to the observed frequencies, we tested the emergent approach separately and combined the other two approaches into one category. We verified the hypothesis on the basis of the binomial test. The test results are shown in Table 3.
The result of the binomial test shows that 91% of companies approach the solution of changes emergently, that is, they start to solve the change when a stimulus or reason appears. The remaining 28 respondents, i.e., 9%, said that they implement changes in the company based on prior preparation or that they solve them constantly on the basis of a continuous approach.
H2 hypothesis verification result: Based on the binomial test result, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

3.3. Identification of Critical Factors in the Company’s Management of Emerging Business Changes

The identification of critical factors in the management of emerging business changes was preceded by the verification of the second hypothesis. Based on its verification, we found that the emergent approach to change management dominates the practice of V4 production enterprises. On the basis of this knowledge, we proceed to find out the factors that are considered by the leaders of corporate change management to be critical to the management approach in question. The results regarding the critical factors are described in Table 4.
Based on the results presented in Table 4, we accept as critical factors for emergent business changes all factors for which the p-value is less than the established significance level α = 0.05. Thus, we found that 11 of the 29 investigated factors influencing the management of business changes are critical for the successful achievement of results during sudden changes in manufacturing companies operating on the V4 market. Managers should pay attention to these critical factors of business change management and deal with them more deeply during their implementation.

4. Discussion

A fundamental element of corporate change is its management. Corporate change management leads to the guidance of individual tasks, processes, or participants so that the change is implemented in accordance with the set goal. Managers responsible for managing change should focus on reducing the resistance to change that may occur on the part of employees. If resistance to change is removed, the level of commitment of stakeholders to better address the different stages of the change process will increase [28]. Many authors consider the management of corporate change to be vital for a given enterprise [34,50,51]. According to them, the leader responsible for leading the change is the one who should encourage his employees, eliminate their resistance, and get feedback from them, which these authors consider to be essential aspects of a successful change process in the corporate environment. Nawaz and Guribie [52] emphasize that the very process of change leadership, in which an individual can influence a group of participants involved in the change process, underlines the importance of leadership during the change process.
Garg et al. [53] see change management as a process to restore the direction, structure, and capacity of an enterprise to deal with changes that are significant to internal and external stakeholders. In their research, Mac Carte and Farina [28] pointed out corporate change management, corporate culture, continuous improvement, and internal corporate capacity as important elements of corporate change management, which formed groups of significant factors. Through research, we have reached several important findings, which we include in proposals and recommendations for the practice of manufacturing companies operating in the market environments of the Visegrad Four countries. One of the aspects investigated was to find out which preconditions are statistically significant in the field of corporate change management for successfully achieving results. We were interested in whether all 10 of the defined preconditions are significant in terms of achieving the aims of business changes. We discovered which of these factors are directly related to satisfaction with the outcomes of corporate changes. Our precondition was that satisfaction with the achieved results would depend on all ten preconditions. Through our research, we found that only five of the preconditions we defined were met. Therefore, we would emphasize the five preconditions involved and recommend that manufacturing companies operating in the V4 market pay more attention to them when introducing corporate changes. These preconditions include: 1. Corporate changes must always have a specific purpose and goal in order to be successful; 2. Employees must always be informed about the change plan and its consequences (both positive and negative); 3. During the process of corporate change, it is important to collect data about the process, 4. To show interest in the opinions, attitudes, needs, and problems of employees during the implementation of changes and their consideration; 5. After the implementation of the change, an initiative should be developed to find out the opinions of employees about whether they are satisfied with the achieved changes or not. Authors Babenko et al. [54] claim that the efficiency of production processes also depends on sufficient information support in all phases of the production process. Thus, informational support must be directed towards the employees, but it must also be directed from the employees to the management of the company. According to Chromjakova et al. [55], part of the change should be motivated by the philosophy of standardization of workplaces, in the sense of setting work procedures and motivating and educating employees. Chromjakova et al. [55] thus confirmed that, through the mentioned elements, it is possible to reduce the influence of critical factors in the management of corporate changes. The authors thus confirmed the result of our research, as we found statistical significance in the individual preconditions and confirmed a certain degree of dependence.
Based on the mentioned results and opinions of the authors from similar research, we recommend that manufacturing companies operating on the V4 market place more emphasis on these preconditions, which could lead to achieving positive results when evaluating initiatives for corporate changes in the future. There would be room for the implementation of tools such as lean production, six sigma, and the like. The company would thus be able to produce more efficiently with lower costs and ultimately be able to satisfy the needs of customers at a higher level. In this way, the desired result could be achieved, which would strengthen the market position of production companies operating on the V4 market. The authors Karpenko et al. [56] also agree with the stated opinion, and they argue that there is an inverse relationship between the manufacturing enterprise and the final consumer. If the manufacturing enterprise produces more efficiently and can better adapt to business changes, the customer will have their final needs satisfied at a higher level. In this way, it is possible to connect corporate changes with the marketing area, as they affect not only the internal corporate environment but also the final satisfaction of the customer’s needs. Authors Liu et al. [57] confirm the stated statement and express that an important element is to support a balanced strategy. This should be in line with the introduced corporate changes and the final satisfaction of the customer’s needs.
Our recommendation for the practice of manufacturing enterprises also focuses on the emphasis placed on the critical factors that we found based on the research. Critical factors can be understood as factors that influence the achievement of the results of implemented corporate changes. These critical factors influence the successful achievement of the goals of the introduced corporate changes and can thus affect the operation of the company in the market environment. For the purposes of our research, we defined 29 factors that we examined regarding the successful management of emergent corporate change. We found out which of the defined factors the respondents (manufacturing companies) consider critical in terms of successfully achieving the positive effects of the change.
Based on statistical verification, we found that out of 29 factors, 11 were perceived as critical. Through research, we have identified the following 11 critical factors: 1. A clear and shared vision of corporate change—this factor assumes that the vision of the change under consideration should be clear; therefore, it should be known exactly where the company should go with the implementation of the given change, and at the same time, it is necessary that the vision of the change be supported by all the participants in it. 2. The preparation of a comprehensive plan, which includes a detailed definition of individual parts of the business change process. When a plan is drawn up, there is more effective implementation, control of the change process, etc. 3. Preparation of the organizational environment—this factor directly emphasizes the readiness of the business environment due to the more flexible responses of the company to circumstances that require a solution through the implementation of business change. Preparedness can also be ensured through educational programs, trainings, and seminars for employees. We could also include the creation of a financial reserve to deal with initiatives that would lead to the implementation of corporate changes. 4. Formation of a work team—all participants of the shift should work based on team cooperation, which results in the creation of work teams and the redistribution of individual tasks among these work teams. In the case of a smaller number of employees, we recommend working based on mutual cooperation between the participants, unless it is possible to create a work team. 5. Information of all participants affected by the change—in this factor, it is important that none of the participants affected by the change be excluded from being informed about all the positives and negatives that the change can bring. 6. Motivating employees to support business changes—it is critical for businesses to consider the motivation of employees who will be involved in the implementation of the given change. Motivation is especially important because it eliminates employee resistance to change, and through motivation, employees can show greater engagement in the process of corporate change. 7. Motivation of the implementers of the change to successfully manage it—in this case, the implementers are the leading entities, whose competence is the management of the corporate change. Their motivation to effectively manage the change process is very important, because their approach, which can be influenced through motivation, depends on the correct management of the change process, correct communication with others, and, in general, on their approach to the change process. 8. Mutual communication between change participants—we emphasize the importance of communication between participants, as communication informs all parties involved in the change process about shifts in the change process, and through communication it is possible to detect deviations from the goal of the introduced change. 9. Regular control of the change management process—this factor has proven to be critical in the implementation of the process of sudden business changes; therefore, we emphasize the importance of this factor and suggest that each company, in terms of its needs corresponding to the change, determine the frequency of control of the business change process from its subjective point of view. 10. Collection of data on the progress of the change—in this factor, we emphasize the importance of recording data related to the progress of the corporate change. Provided that the change process is recorded, it is possible to manage the change process more effectively, and if necessary, it is possible to go back to previous parts of the change process and evaluate them, e.g., in case of deficiencies. 11. Monitoring partial successes in achieving change—this factor can also be understood in the context of achieving partial milestones in the process of corporate change until the end of the change process.
The factors mentioned are especially important for manufacturing companies. At their level, there must be regular communication, appropriate data collection, sufficient information, and employee motivation. The importance of these factors in production enterprises was also confirmed by the authors Tiwari et al. [58]. The authors claim that proper communication, information, employee motivation, and regular control are important factors for supporting the sustainability of the production process and are a suitable precondition for the introduction of innovative tools such as lean production, Six Sigma, and the like. In this way, it is possible to achieve a certain level of optimization of business processes (not only production ones) in the company. Given the fact that these factors proved to be critical in our research, they must be considered significant from the point of view of change management. Based on this monitoring, it is possible to continuously evaluate the state of the change process in terms of its vision and goal. At the same time, it is possible to reveal the weak points of the corporate change process, which would require the adoption of corrective measures to make the given change process more efficient. Therefore, we emphasize the importance of these 11 factors and encourage manufacturing enterprises operating in the Visegrad Four market to address these factors during change initiatives and include them in the process of managing these corporate changes. If the change is successfully implemented, it can support the competitiveness of the company in the market environment.
Due to the fact that, in the case of countries belonging to the V4 group, similar research has not yet been carried out that would address the issue in question, we evaluate our research as important and beneficial for the researched area, while its results can help companies manage business changes in the current conditions of this market. At the same time, the findings of our study can assist other researchers in the field of corporate change management, who can apply them to other integration groups of countries, or our study can serve as a foundation for the application of the issue to a single investigated country. It would be interesting to compare the results found with our results, which could point to differences between countries or integration groups in the addressed area of corporate change management.
In the future, we would like to apply the solved issue to the field of companies that provide services and thus find out the differences that characterize change management in the environment of manufacturing companies and what features change management carries in the case of companies that provide services. Another of our visions would be to build a model of corporate change management on a general level that would be applicable to a selected group of companies.

5. Conclusions

The constant progress of the present time brings with it many circumstances that require the implementation of various changes. Changes become part of business entities, especially from the point of view of maintaining their competitiveness. The aim of this contribution was to find out which preconditions for the management of corporate changes in the case of manufacturing companies operating on the market of the Visegrad Four are statistically significant, such that the successful achievement of the desired results of these changes depends on them. Our other goal was to find out what approach to business change management is currently dominant in the case of manufacturing enterprises in V4 market conditions. Based on our research, we found that in the conditions of the mentioned market and the given type of enterprises, an emergent approach prevails, which is characterized by the fact that manufacturing enterprises approach the solution and subsequent management of changes when a stimulus appears that causes change. Based on this finding, we subsequently identified which critical factors prevail in this type of approach and thus become an important element that manufacturing companies operating in the V4 market should monitor when managing business changes. We examined 29 factors, of which 11 were found to be critical for an emergent approach to business change management. Based on the findings, we can state that the set goals of our research have been met.
We consider the respondents’ lower willingness to fill out our questionnaire to be a limiting element of our research, which could be related to the time workload of the company’s employees. We also encountered the fact that the respondents responded to the questionnaire with the excuse that they did not have enough capacity to fill out the questionnaire or that they could not provide us with answers due to confidentiality obligations. Despite this, we are pleased with the volume of responses received from respondents, on the basis of which we were able to examine the issue and draw the stated conclusions. We believe that the results of our research will be of benefit to managers who manage business changes, will help to achieve successful results of business change initiatives, and will strengthen the competitiveness of manufacturing enterprises.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.P. and Z.R.; methodology, Z.R.; software, J.F.; validation, Z.R. and E.K.; formal analysis, O.P.; investigation, E.K.; resources, J.F. and E.K.; data curation, Z.R. and J.F.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.R. and O.P.; writing—review and editing, Z.R. and E.K.; visualization, O.P.; supervision, O.P.; project administration, J.F. and E.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, grant number 07711134.

Data Availability Statement

All data are displayed through tables and figures. If necessary, missing tables will be documented.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was carried out without any commercial or financial relationships that could lead to a conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Fischer, R.J.; Halibozek, E.P.; Walters, D.C. Contingency Planning Emergency Response and Safety. Introd. Secur. 2019, 3, 249–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mohd, W.; Idris, S.; Momani, R. Impact of Environmental Dynamism on Marketing Strategy Comprehensiveness and Organizational Performance. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 8, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Woo, B.; Jun, H.J. Globalization and slums: How do economic, political, and social globalization affect slum prevalence? Habitat Int. 2020, 98, 102152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Doval, E. Change management strategies related to the global environment complexity. Ann. Spiru Haret Univ. Econ. Ser. 2016, 16, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Garrido, A.P. Competition in the Globalization Era and his Effects on Geoeconomics. Geopolit.-Rev. De Estud. Sobre Espac. Y Poder 2017, 8, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dzikowska, M.; Gorynia, M. Theoretical aspects of enterprise competitiveness—Towards eclectic concept. Natl. Econ. 2012, 255, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kuzminski, L.; Jalowiec, T.; Wojtaszek, H.; Masloch, P. Analysis of Factors Influencing the Competitiveness of Manufacturing Companies. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2020, 23, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brown, S.; Manning, M.R.; Ludema, J.D. Organization Identity: Its Role in Organization Change. Res. Organ. Chang. Dev. 2016, 24, 145–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kim, J.; Park, M.J. Influence of Entrepreneurship Manifestation Factor on Organisational Innovation: The Role of Corporate Entrepreneurship and Imperative Innovation Culture. J. Entrep. 2022, 31, 514–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pikhart, M.; Klimova, B. Information and Communication Technology-Enhanced Business and Managerial Communication in SMEs in the Czech Republic. Information 2020, 11, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stouten, J.; Rousseau, D.M.; De Cremer, D. Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2018, 12, 752–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Baran, B.E.; Filipkowski, J.N.; Stockwell, R.A. Organizational Change: Perspectives from Human Resource Management. J. Chang. Manag. 2019, 19, 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Keller, S.; Schaninger, B. Beyond Performance 2.0: A Proven Approach to Leading Large-Scale Change; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  14. Marrucci, L.; Daddi, T.; Iraldo, F. Institutional and stakeholder pressures on organisational performance and green human resources management. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 30, 324–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cooper, S.C.; Pereira, V.; Vrontis, D.; Liu, Y. Extending the resource and knowledge-based view: Insights from new contexts of analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 156, 113523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ettlie, J.; Muammer, O.; Murthy, R. R&D Dynamic Capabilities in a Changing Regulatory Context. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2021, 70, 98–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fredberg, T.; Pregmark, J.E. Organizational transformation: Handling the double-edged sword of urgency. Long Range Plan. 2022, 55, 102091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Burnes, B. The Origins of Lewin’s Three-Step Model of Change. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2020, 56, 32–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jones, J.; Firth, J.; Hannibal, C.; Ogunseyin, M. Factors Contributing to Organizational Change Success or Failure: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis of 200 Reflective Case Studies; IGI Global: Hamlin, TX, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rafferty, A.E.; Jimmieson, N.L.; Armenakis, A.A. Change readiness: A multilevel review. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 110–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Strukelj, T.; Zabukovsek, S.S. Enterprise values and enterprise policy interdependence. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraz. 2019, 32, 2829–2849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Miller, K. 5 Critical Steps in The Change Management Process; Harvard Business School: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Available online: https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/change-management-process (accessed on 19 March 2020).
  23. Al-Haddad, S.; Kotnour, T. Integrating the organizational change literature: A model for successful change. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2015, 28, 234–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Belias, D.; Koustelios, A. The impact of leadership and change management strategy on organizational culture. Eur. Sci. J. 2014, 10, 451–470. [Google Scholar]
  25. Park, J.E.; Wang, Y.D.; Wei, S.J. Employees’ perceptions and earnings benchmarks. Pac. Account. Rev. 2022;  ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ramosaj, B.; Halit Karaxha, M.S.; Hidajet Karaxha, M. Change Management and its Influence in the Business Environment. Int. Rev. 2014, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sittrop, D.; Crosthwaite, C. Minimising Risk-The Application of Kotter’s Change Management Model on Customer Relationship Management Systems: A Case Study. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2022, 14, 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mac Carte, P.; Farina, P. Measuring the Organizational Change Maturity of Chilean Companies. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 791106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Payne, D.; Trumbach, C.; Soharu, R. The Values Change Management Cycle: Ethical Change Management. J. Bus. Ethics 2022, 188, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kotter, J.P. Leading the Change Process. Eight Steps to a Successful Business Transformation in a Turbulent Economy; Management Press: Prague, Czech Republic, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  31. Chen, C.J. SoTL enculturation guided by Kotter’s model of change. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 2021, 26, 468–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mosadeghrad, A.M.; Ansarian, M. Why do organizational change programs fail? Int. J. Strateg. Chang. Manag. 2014, 5, 189–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Harrison, R.; Fischer, S.; Walpola, R.L.; Chauhan, A.; Babalola, T.; Mears, S.; Le-Dao, H. Where Do Models for Change Management, Improvement and Implementation Meet? A Systematic Review of the Applications of Change Management Models in Healthcare. J. Healthc. Leadersh. 2021, 13, 58–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hussain, S.T.; Lei, S.; Muhammad, T.A.; Haider, J.; AiI, M. Kurt Lewin’s change model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee involvement in organizational change. J. Innov. Knowl. 2018, 3, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Demir, E.; Kocaoglu, B. The use of McKinsey s 7S framework as a strategic planning and economic assessment tool in the process of digital transformation. Press Acad. Procedia (PAP) 2019, 9, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Manchester, J.; Gray-Miceli, D.L.; Metcalf, J.A.; Paolini, C.A.; Napier, A.H.; Coogle, C.L.; Owens, M.G. Facilitating Lewin’s change model with collaborative evaluation in promoting evidence-based practices of health professionals. Eval Program Plann 2014, 47, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Small, A.; Gist, D.; Souza, D.; Dalton, J.; Magny-Normilus, C.; David, D. Using Kotter’s change model for implementing bedside handoff: A quality improvement project. J. Nurs. Care Qual. 2016, 31, 304–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Mork, A.; Krupp, A.; Hankwitz, J.; Malec, A. Using Kotter’s change framework to implement and sustain multiple complementary ICU initiatives. J. Nurs. Care Qual. 2018, 33, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Parry, W.; Kirsch, C.; Carey, P.; Shaw, D. Empirical development of a model of performance drivers in organizational change projects. J. Chang. Manag. 2013, 14, 99–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cummings, S.; Bridgman, T.; Brown, K.G. Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Hum. Relat. 2016, 36, 33–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Teixeira, B.; Gregory PA, M.; Austin, Z. How are pharmacists in Ontario adapting to practice change? Results of a qualitative analysis using Kotter’s change management model. Can. Pharm. J. 2017, 150, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Prosci. Change Management Coach. ADKAR Model of Change. 2015. Available online: http://www.change-management-coach.com/adkar.html (accessed on 21 April 2023).
  43. Mento, A.J.; Jones, R.M.; Dirndorfer, W. A change management process: Grounded in both theory and practice. J. Chang. Manag. 2002, 3, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Banerjee, Y.; Tuffnell, C.; Alkhadragy, R. Mento’s change model in teaching competency-based medical education. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 19, 472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jaaron AA, M.; Hijazi, I.H.; Musleh KI, Y. A conceptual model for adoption of BIM in construction projects: ADKAR as an integrative model of change management. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2021, 34, 655–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Siqing, S.; Li, W.; Ling, L.; Yong, C.H. An emergency response decision support system framework for application in e-government. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2012, 13, 411–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sauro, J.; Lewis, J.R. Is There a Statistical Difference between Designs? In Quantifying the User Experience; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Leavitt, H.J.; Bahrami, H. Managerial Psychology: Managing Behavior in Organizations; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  49. Burke, W.W.; Litwin, G.H. A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change. J. Manag. 1992, 18, 523–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yin, J.H.; Li, C.C. Data governance and green technological innovation performance: A curvilinear relationship. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Singh, S.K.; Del Giudice, M.; Nicotra, M.; Fiano, F. How Firm Performs Under Stakeholder Pressure: Unpacking the Role of Absorptive Capacity and Innovation Capability. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 69, 3802–3813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nawaz, A.; Guribie, F.L. Impacts of institutional isomorphism on the adoption of social procurement in the Chinese construction industry. Constr. Innov. 2022;  ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Garg, C.P.; Gorcun, O.F.; Kundu, P.; Kucukonder, H. An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach based on Bonferroni functions for selection and evaluation of industrial robots for the automobile manufacturing industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 213, 118863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Babenko, V.; Demyanenkob, O.; Lyba, V.; Feoktystova, O. Assessment the Cost-effectiveness of Information Support for the Business Processes of a Virtual Machine-building Enterprise in the Framework of Industry 4.0. Int. J. Eng. 2021, 34, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chromjakova, F.; Trentesaux, D.; Kwarteng, M.A. Human and Cobot Cooperation Ethics: The Process Management Concept of the Production Workplace. J. Compet. 2021, 13, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Karpenko, Y.; Kuznetsova, I.; Chykurkova, A.; Matveyeva, M.; Hridin, O.; Nakonechna, K. Formation of the Enterprise Strategy Based on the Industry Life Cycle. Indep. J. Manag. Prod. 2021, 12, 262–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liu, W.H.; Liang, Y.J.; Tang, O.; Shi, V.; Liu, X.Y. Cooperate or not? Strategic analysis of platform interactions considering market power and precision marketing. Transp. Res. Part E-Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 154, 102479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tiwari, P.; Sadeghi, J.K.; Eseonu, C. A sustainable lean production framework with a case implementation: Practice-based view theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 123078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Systems 12 00342 g001
Figure 1. Bibliographic map related to the term “change management”. Source: authors’ research in the VosViewer program.
Figure 1. Bibliographic map related to the term “change management”. Source: authors’ research in the VosViewer program.
Systems 12 00342 g001
Systems 12 00342 g002
Figure 2. Representation of production companies according to the country in which they operate. Source: authors’ research.
Figure 2. Representation of production companies according to the country in which they operate. Source: authors’ research.
Systems 12 00342 g002
Systems 12 00342 g003
Figure 3. Categorization of respondents according to the size of enterprises resulting from the number of employees in the enterprise. Source: authors’ research.
Figure 3. Categorization of respondents according to the size of enterprises resulting from the number of employees in the enterprise. Source: authors’ research.
Systems 12 00342 g003
Table 1. Number of manufacturing enterprises in Visegrad Four countries as of 31.12.2022. Source: own research.
Table 1. Number of manufacturing enterprises in Visegrad Four countries as of 31.12.2022. Source: own research.
CountryA Sample of Enterprises in the CountryNumber of Production Enterprises% Representation of Production Enterprises in the Sample
Slovak Republic 440,85136,4598.3%
Czech Republic 821,33657,2327%
Hungary 682,08739,9475.9%
Poland 2,188,429146,4116.7%
TOTAL4,132,703280,04927.9%
Table 2. Statistical evaluation of the investigated preconditions. Source: authors’ research.
Table 2. Statistical evaluation of the investigated preconditions. Source: authors’ research.
PreconditionThe Results of Testing through the Chi-Square Test (χ²)
Value dfSig. Sig. (2-Sided)Result
1. Pearson Chi-Square0.05710.811 X
Fisher’s Exact Test 0.879
2.Pearson Chi-Square262810.105 X
Fisher’s Exact Test 0.112
3.Pearson Chi-Square659510.01 ✓
Fisher’s Exact Test 0.025
Cramer’s V0.144 0.01
4.Pearson Chi-Square641110.011 ✓
Fisher’s Exact Test 0.013
Cramer’s V0.142 0.011
5.Pearson Chi-Square659210.01 ✓
Fisher’s Exact Test 0.011
Cramer’s V0.144 0.01
6.Pearson Chi-Square576910.016 ✓
Fisher’s Exact Test 0.017
Cramer’s V0.135 0.016
7.Pearson Chi-Square1,510.221 X
Fisher’s Exact Test 0.258
8.Pearson Chi-Square0.13110.718 X
Fisher’s Exact Test 0.779
9.Pearson Chi-Square132410.25 X
Fisher’s Exact Test 0.262
10.Pearson Chi-Square599110.014 ✓
Fisher’s Exact Test 0.017
Cramer’s V0.137 0.014
Number of Valid Cases: 318
Table 3. The results of the binomial test. Source: authors’ research.
Table 3. The results of the binomial test. Source: authors’ research.
Binomial Test
CategoryNObserved Prop.Test Prop.Sig.
Approach to solving business changesGroup 1Emergent 2900.910.510.000
Group 2Regular (planned in advance) and continuous280.09
Total 3181.00
Table 4. The result of the MANOVA test in the identification of critical factors. Source: authors’ research.
Table 4. The result of the MANOVA test in the identification of critical factors. Source: authors’ research.
SourceDependent VariableType III Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.


Corrected Model















Corrected Model










A clear and shared vision of management business change47,185 a147,18515,6390.000
Availability of resources for change0.860 b10.8600.4160.520
Skills of change participants0.297 c10.2970.1170.732
Regular inspection12,182 d112,18250060.026
Organizational readiness14,886 e114,88674620.007
Collection of data on the course of change35,156 f135,15617,0260.000
Awareness of participants19,163 g119,16393490.003
Employee motivation12,912 h112,91251770.024
Motivation of implementers13,554 i113,55451330.025
Assembling a work team36,567 j136,56712,7040.000
Mutual communication17,790 k117,79048190.029
Participation in education1920 l119200.5940.442
Readiness assessment0.722 m10.7220.2620.609
Two-way communication6462 n1646225470.112
Employee feedback0.020 o10.0200.0090.923
Employee space0.754 p10.7540.3320.565
Assessing employees’ ideas and consideration1150 q111500.4780.490
Staff readiness0.436 r10.4360.2200.640
Shared purpose1990 s119900.7670.382
Personal performance2356 t1235610920.297
Effective management0.700 u10.7000.3230.570
Employee engagement8615 v1861534600.064
Preparation of a comprehensive plan13,772 w113,77248950.028
Employee cooperation and management5877 x1587720810.151
Employee flexibility1955 y119550.7370.392
Skills of change leaders0.318 z10.3180.1270.721
Acceptance of change by employees0.085 aa10.0850.0300.863
Adherence to the time frame1477 ab114770.6170.433
Tracking partial successes15,360 ac115,36061730.014
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rosnerova, Z.; Ponisciakova, O.; Kicova, E.; Fabus, J. Comprehensive Study of Critical Areas of Change Management as a Starting Point for Leaders in the Area of Managing Human Resources in Organizations: The Case of the Visegrad Four. Systems 2024, 12, 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090342

AMA Style

Rosnerova Z, Ponisciakova O, Kicova E, Fabus J. Comprehensive Study of Critical Areas of Change Management as a Starting Point for Leaders in the Area of Managing Human Resources in Organizations: The Case of the Visegrad Four. Systems. 2024; 12(9):342. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090342

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rosnerova, Zuzana, Olga Ponisciakova, Eva Kicova, and Juraj Fabus. 2024. "Comprehensive Study of Critical Areas of Change Management as a Starting Point for Leaders in the Area of Managing Human Resources in Organizations: The Case of the Visegrad Four" Systems 12, no. 9: 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090342

APA Style

Rosnerova, Z., Ponisciakova, O., Kicova, E., & Fabus, J. (2024). Comprehensive Study of Critical Areas of Change Management as a Starting Point for Leaders in the Area of Managing Human Resources in Organizations: The Case of the Visegrad Four. Systems, 12(9), 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090342

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop