The Dynamics of Change Management and Human Resource Responses to Organizational Disruption: A Phenomenological Study at PT. Sentosa Deli Mandiri Medan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35870/emt.v10i1.5863Keywords:
Change Management, Organizational Disruption, Human Resource Adaptation, Phenomenological StudyAbstract
This phenomenological study investigates the dynamics of change management and human resource responses to organizational disruption at PT. Sentosa Deli Mandiri Medan. The research employs a qualitative phenomenological approach, involving 15 participants from various organizational levels. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, observations, and document analysis conducted from September to October 2025. The findings reveal three major themes: (1) organizational resilience mechanisms in facing digital transformation and market volatility, (2) psychological and behavioral adaptation patterns of employees during disruptive changes, and (3) leadership strategies in facilitating organizational change. The study demonstrates that successful change management requires a holistic approach integrating technological readiness, cultural transformation, and human capital development. Key factors contributing to effective change implementation include transparent communication, participative decision-making, continuous learning initiatives, and supportive leadership. The research contributes to change management theory by providing empirical evidence from an Indonesian organizational context, particularly highlighting the role of collective culture in shaping change responses. Practical implications suggest that organizations undergoing disruption should prioritize employee engagement, invest in adaptive leadership development, and establish flexible organizational structures. The study's limitations include its focus on a single organization and the specific cultural context of Medan, North Sumatra. Future research should explore comparative studies across different industries and cultural settings to enhance generalizability of findings.
Downloads
References
Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative science quarterly, 61-89. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393986.
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of management review, 27(1), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.5922314.
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of change management, 9(2), 127-142.
Bartunek, J. M., Rousseau, D. M., Rudolph, J. W., & DePalma, J. A. (2006). On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. The Journal of applied behavioral science, 42(2), 182-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886305285455.
Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381-398. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0891.
Bevan, M. T. (2014). A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative health research, 24(1), 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313519710.
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control?. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 13(3), 345-365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320444000128.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.
Burton-Jones, A., & Gallivan, M. J. (2007). Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: A multilevel perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 657–679.
By, R. T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369–380.
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44–53.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2015). Organization development and change (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789.
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Elving, W. J. L. (2005). The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 129–138.
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.
Finlay, L. (2011). Phenomenology for therapists: Researching the lived world. Wiley-Blackwell.
Finlay, L., & Gough, B. (2003). Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. Blackwell Publishing.
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Fugate, M., Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (2012). Managing employee withdrawal during organizational change: The role of threat appraisal. Journal of Management, 38(3), 890–914.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Duquesne University Press.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, 3rd McGraw Hill. New York.
Irawanto, D. W., Ramsey, P. L., & Ryan, J. C. (2011). Challenge of leading in Javanese culture. Asian Ethnicity, 12(2), 125–139.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Kwon, S. W., Rondi, E., Levin, D. Z., De Massis, A., & Brass, D. J. (2020). Network brokerage: An integrative review and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1092–1120.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255.
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193–215.
Linnenluecke, M. K. (2017). Resilience in business and management research: A review of influential publications and a research agenda. International journal of management reviews, 19(1), 4-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12076.
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2021). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture (Updated ed.). Oxford University Press.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Oreg, S., Bartunek, J. M., Lee, G., & Do, B. (2018). An affect-based model of recipients’ responses to organizational change events. Academy of Management Review, 43(1), 65–86.
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461–524.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Cornell University Press.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation methods, 4th edn.(Thousand Oaks; London.
Rafferty, A. E., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2017). Subjective perceptions of organizational change and employee resistance to change: Direct and mediated relationships with employee well-being. British Journal of Management, 28(2), 248–264.
Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. (2002). Capability traps and self-confirming attribution errors in the dynamics of process improvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 265–295.
Sari, D. P., & Wijaya, A. (2022). Organizational transformation in Indonesian companies: Cultural perspectives and change management strategies. Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 11(2), 78–94.
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2020). Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business, 51(3), 386–394.
Van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Weick, K. E., & Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3, No. 10.1002). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.
Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Blegind-Jensen, T. (2021). Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation. Journal of the Association for information systems, 22(1), 102-129.
Williams, T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017). Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Academy of management annals, 11(2), 733-769. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0134.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Venny Fraya Hartin Nst, Doly Muhendy Wijaya, Azaman Azaman, Dewi Budhiartini Yuli Isnaini
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Copyright Retention and Open Access License
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal non-exclusive right of first publication under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license allows unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2. Rights Granted Under CC BY 4.0
Under this license, readers are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use
- No additional restrictions — the licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as license terms are followed
3. Attribution Requirements
All uses must include:
- Proper citation of the original work
- Link to the Creative Commons license
- Indication if changes were made to the original work
- No suggestion that the licensor endorses the user or their use
4. Additional Distribution Rights
Authors may:
- Deposit the published version in institutional repositories
- Share through academic social networks
- Include in books, monographs, or other publications
- Post on personal or institutional websites
Requirement: All additional distributions must maintain the CC BY 4.0 license and proper attribution.
5. Self-Archiving and Pre-Print Sharing
Authors are encouraged to:
- Share pre-prints and post-prints online
- Deposit in subject-specific repositories (e.g., arXiv, bioRxiv)
- Engage in scholarly communication throughout the publication process
6. Open Access Commitment
This journal provides immediate open access to all content, supporting the global exchange of knowledge without financial, legal, or technical barriers.
