Introduction

The concept of self-efficacy is the confidence that a particular person could produce influential performance towards an event that affects their life. Therefore, self-efficacy will determine how people feel, think, self-motivated, and their behavior. Research done by Onyishi & Ogbodo (2012) explained that self-efficacy has a significant relationship with the lecturer’s behavior (related to the behavior of taking the load in their work). Research done by Hall et al. (2016) explained that self-efficacy is a predictor that is stronger than knowledge to produce behavior. Other research also explained that there is a significant positive relationship between self-efficacy and employee’s readiness for organizational change (Andrew & Mohankumar, 2017). This research desires to measure how far the influence of perceived organizational support towards readiness for change of lecturers in private colleges, by making self-efficacy as a mediator. Novelty of this research is making all three variables as the empowerment of human resource as one whole research model. Besides that, there are not much of similar test and study done by college organization, especially within lecturers. Lecturer’s readiness in facing changes becomes important due to the purpose of the changes in the college’s environment, which is basically, to improve competitive values in the organization to achieve their purpose, as well as decreasing the level of resistance of lecturers as they are facing the changes. Armenakis et al. (1993) explained that creating readiness for organizational change is an attempt to support changes that will precede resistance behavior. Besides that, organizational changes and the readiness of its members are closely correlated. This behavior will affect the behavior of lecturers. The result of this research shows that readiness for change has a direct negative effect on resistance to change (Jabbarian & Chegini, 2017; Ming-Chu & Meng-Hsiu, 2015). This research also shows that lecturers having readiness for organizational change studied from aggressive, passive attitude and their behavior in coordinating the changes will have a positive impact on organizational studies (Mtebe, 2020; Shechtman et al., 2005). It is expected for lecturers to understand more about the purpose of changes so that they will receive the same changes that occur in the future.

Perceived organizational support is defined as how far a lecturer believes that college organizations (the place where they work) respect their contributions, efforts and pay attention to their welfare (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Ming-Chu & Meng-Hsiu, 2015). Eisenberger et al. (2002) explained that perceived organizational support gives contributions to lecturers to feel obliged to care for college organization’s welfare and take actions on the name of the organization, which in turn improving organizational commitment, spontaneity, and performance. When a lecturer has perceived organizational support, they believe that college organization cares about them and have higher confidence within themselves, as well as improved life satisfaction (Bernarto et al., 2020). College organization promotes changes when lecturers support the college organization when the changes have legitimacy and rationalism (Self & Schraeder, 2009).

Eisenberger et al. (2002) explained that based on reciprocal norms when lecturers finally have their perceived organizational support, they will feel obliged to care towards the college organization’s welfare and achievement of objectives. Therefore, when college organizations do some changes to achieve the targets, then lecturers will have positive behavior by supporting the changes. Research done by Onyishi & Ogbodo (2012) shows that self-efficacy and perceived organizational behavior have a significant relationship with lecturers’ behavior (related to the behavior of taking the load in their work). The result of the research also explained that supportive behavior from college organization gives a sign to lecturers that the organization evaluates them, so this would make them involved in the behavior-oriented in positive changes.

Generally, self-efficacy is someone confident that they have the skills to implement specific tasks appropriately (Greenberg, 2011). Bandura (1977) defined the concept of self-efficacy as a belief that someone could perform in a certain way to achieve a specific target that influences their life. Bandura et al. (1994) also explained the concept of self-efficacy as a belief that someone could produce a specified performance level that influences the event that is also impactful for their life. therefore, self-efficacy will determine how people feel, think, self-motivated, and their behavior. Believing that someone’s skill offer chances to implement a complicated task so will tend to be a challenge for them.

Based on previous tests, this research proposes the first hypothesis as:

H1: perceived organizational support has a significant influence on the lecturer’s self-efficacy.

H2: perceived organizational support has a significant influence on the lecturer’s readiness for change.

H3: Self-Efficacy has a positive influence on the lecturer’s readiness for change.

H4: perceived organizational support has a significant influence on the lecturer’s readiness for change through self-efficacy.

Methods

This research will test and analyze the influence of perceived organizational support and self-efficacy towards readiness for change of lecturers in five different private colleges in Indonesia. The data collection method used is by 221 samples of questionnaires spread. Data analysis of this research is by using SEM linear regression with the help of SmartPLS 3.0 software.The population in this research is the permanent lecturers in five different private colleges in Indonesia, which has around 300 people. The questionnaire was spread by simple random sampling technique. Questionnaire results that were returned validly were 221 samples. (84.7% from the whole population). Based on the description of the literature review and theoretical basis, then the main focus of this research (Figure 1) is about the influence of perceived organizational support (POS) and self-efficacy (SE) towards readiness for change (RFC) of lecturers in a private college. A clearer visualization is shown below:

Figure 1: Research Model

Results and Discussion

Results for Validity Test and Research Indicator Reliability

Stages of measuring on testing model involve convergent validity test and discriminant validity. While the value of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability is needed in testing for construction reliability. PLS analysis results could be used to test for research hypothesis if all indicators in the PLS model have met the requirements of convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability test.

Convergent Validity Test

A convergent validity test is done by seeing the value of the loading factor of each indicator towards the construct. In most references, a factor weighing from at least 0.5 is considered to have validity that is strong enough to explain the latent construct (Chin, 1998; Ghozali, 2014; Hair et al., 2010). In this research, the minimum limit of loading factor that is accepted is 0.7, with the condition of AVE score for every construct, which is > 0.5 (Ghozali, 2014). Based on the result from SmartPLS 3.0, after taking out the items that did not meet the requirements, all items in Figure 1 and Table 1 having the loading factor value above 0.7 are considered to be valid. Therefore, the convergent validity of this research model has all meet the requirements. Loading factors, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and AVE can all be seen in Figure 1 and Table 1.

Hypothesis Examination

The hypothesis test in PLS is also denoted as an inner model test. This test covers a significance test that has a direct and indirect impact as well as how large is the measurement of the exogenous variable impact towards the endogenous variable. The influence test is done by using a T-Statistic test in an analysis model called Partial Least Squared (PLS) with the help of SmartPLS 3.0 software. With the bootstrapping technique, R square value and significance test value can be obtained as shown in the Tables 1 - 4 below:

Based on Table 3 above, the R Square value of SE is 0.585, which means that the variable of SE could be explained by the variable of POS in the percentage of 58.5%, while the remaining 41.5% is explained by other variables not explained in this research. R Square value of RFX is 0.755, which means that the variable of RFC could be explained by the variable of SE and POS in the percentage of 75.5%, while the remaining 24.5% is explained by other variables not explained in this research. Table 4 shows T-Statistics and P-Values of influence between variables of the research mentioned above.

The construct of POS has a positive influence on the construct of self-efficacy, where this case is proven by the original sample value (Beta) in the value of 0.765, which means there is a positive relationship between the construct. The T-Statistics value of this constructed relationship is 27.281 with the T value of 1.96 at the significance level of 5% because the criteria for this T-statistics value should be >1.96 and P-Value 0,000<0,05, hence the calculation result above shows that the relationship between POS and SE is considered to be significant. Therefore, POS has a positive influence on the SE construct, so the first hypothesis (H1) is accepted.

The construct of POS has a positive influence on the construct of RFC, where this case is proven by the original sample value (Beta) in the value of 0.325, which means there is a positive relationship between the construct. The T-Statistics value of this constructed relationship is 5.327 with the T value of 1.96 at a significance level of 5% because the criteria for this T-statistics value should be >1.96 and P-Value 0,000<0,05, hence the calculation result above shows that the relationship between POS and RFC is considered to be significant. Therefore, POS has a positive influence on the RFC construct, so the second hypothesis (H2) is accepted.

The construct of SE has a positive influence on the construct of RFC, where this case is proven by the original sample value (Beta) in the value of 0.594, which means there is a positive relationship between the construct. The T-Statistics value of this constructed relationship is 9.678 with the T value of 1.96 at a significance level of 5% because the criteria for this T-statistics value should be >1.96 and P-Value 0,000<0,05, hence the calculation result above shows that the relationship between SE and RFC is considered to be significant. Therefore, SE has a positive influence on the RFC construct, so the third hypothesis (H3) is accepted.

The construct of SE has a positive influence as a mediator between the relationship of POS and RFC. This is proven by the original sample value (Beta) in the value of 0.454, which means there is a positive relationship between the construct. The T-Statistics value of this constructed relationship is 9.161 with the T value of 1.96 at the significance level of 5% because the criteria for this T-statistics value should be >1.96 and P-Value 0,000<0,05, hence the calculation result above shows that the relationship between POS and RFC with SE as a mediator is considered to be significant. Therefore, SE has a significant positive influence as a mediator between the relationship of POS and RFC, so the fourth hypothesis (H4) is accepted.

Influence of Perceived Organizational Support Towards Self-Efficacy

The result of linear regression analysis shown in Table 1 explains that the POS variable has a significant positive impact towards variable of SE of lecturer in a private college (significance value of T calculation (0.000) < level of significance (0.05)) or have a direct effect as much as 0.765. This is defined as when POS increases, then SE of lecturers in private college also increases. This result of research also parallels with the research result done by Cheng et al. (2020) and Musenze et al. (2021) who show that there is a positive relationship between POS and SE of employees. Research is done by Musenze et al. (2021) also explains that there is a positive relationship between an organization’s support perception and the self-efficacy of lecturers. Improvement of perceived organizational support felt by lecturers is expected to improve the self-efficacy and power struggle of lecturers towards changes that occur in private colleges in terms of the increase in readiness to face the era of education 4.0.

The result of research done by Ming-Chu & Meng-Hsiu (2015) showed that there is a relationship between perceived organizational support and resistance towards changes mediated by readiness for change. Other than that, research done by Jabbarian & Chegini (2016) showed that there is a positive impact between perceived organizational support and the lecturer’s readiness for change. Research is done by Gundersen (2020) also explained that there is a positive relationship between perceived organizational support and readiness for change to lecturers. According to Rhoades & Eisenberger (2002), perceived organizational support can be divided into five sub-dimensions carefully noticed by college organization, which consist of: (1) lecturer’s welfare, (2) lecturer’s purpose, (3) lecturer’s contribution, (4) lecturer’s self-development, and (5) reward for lecturer’s effort.

Influence of Perceived Organizational Support Towards Readiness for Change

The result of linear regression analysis shown in Table 2 explains that the POS variable has a significant positive impact towards variable of RFC of lecturer in a private college (significance value of T calculation (0.000)< level of significance (0.05)) or have a direct effect as much as 0.325. This is defined as when POS increases, then the RFC of lecturers in private colleges also increases. This result of research also parallels with the research result done by Yu & Lee (2015), Jabbarian & Chegini (2016) dan Dharmawan & Nurtjahjanti (2017) who shows that there is a positive relationship between POS and RFC of employees. Research is done by Yu & Lee (2015) also explains that there is a positive relationship between POS and RFC of lecturers. Besides that, research done by Jabbarian & Chegini (2016) shows that there is a positive impact between POS and RFC of employees. Research is done by Dharmawan & Nurtjahjanti (2017) also explains that there is a positive relationship between an organization’s support perception and readiness for change of employees. Improvement of perceived organizational support felt by lecturers is expected to improve lecturer’s support towards changes that occur in private colleges in terms of the increase in readiness to face changes.

Influence of Self-Efficacy Towards Readiness for Change

The result of linear regression analysis shown in Table 3 explains that SE variable has a significant positive impact towards variable of RFC of lecturer in a private college (significance value of T calculation (0.000)< level of significance (0.05)) or have a direct effect as much as 0.765. This is defined as when SE increases, then the RFC of lecturers in private colleges also increases. This result of the research is also parallel with the research result done by Bagus et al. (2016), Andrew & Mohankumar (2017) dan Angkawijaya et al. (2017) who shows that there is a positive relationship between SE and RFC of employees. Research is done by Bagus et al. (2016) also explains that there is a significant relationship between SE and RFC of lecturers. Besides that, research done by Andrew & Mohankumar (2017) shows that there is a significant positive relationship between SE and readiness for organizational change. Research is done by Angkawijaya et al. (2017) also explains that there is a significant relationship between SE and readiness for change of employees. Improvement of self-efficacy felt by lecturers is expected to improve lecturer’s support towards changes that occur in private colleges in terms of the increase in readiness to face changes.

According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is based on four main sources, which include: performance accomplishment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and psychological state. When someone has a good performance achievement, then they will have a high confidence level within themselves in finishing a task or a challenge. Likewise, when someone has experience in visualizing as well as having a relationship with a task or a challenge, then they will also have a high confidence level. A verbal or psychological condition of persuasive skill will also influence confidence in facing a certain event.Research done by Onyishi & Ogbodo (2012) shows that self-efficacy and perceived organizational support have a significant relationship with lecturer’s behavior (related to the behavior of taking the load in their work). The research result is done by Hall et al. (2016) also shows that self-efficacy is a predictor that is stronger than knowledge to produce behavior. Research is done by Andrew & Mohankumar (2017) also shows that there is a significant positive relationship between self-efficacy and employee’s readiness for organizational change. . Verma & Sharma (2013) did research on the scale of self-efficacy, which are persistence, self-determination, and self-reliance, the result shows that the items are valid and reliable, with the Cronbach's alpha of persistence (0.643), self-determination (0.413), and self-reliance (0.504). Based on the concept of self-efficacy above, the indicators include (1) confidence, (2) skills, (3) persistence, and (4) self-motivation.

Influence of Perceived Organizational Support Towards Readiness for Change Through Self-Efficacy as Mediator

The result of linear regression analysis shown in Table 4 explains that perceived organizational support variable has a significant positive impact towards variable of readiness for change of lecturer in private college through self-efficacy variable (significance value of T calculation (0.000) < level of significance (0.05)) or have a direct effect as much as 0.454. this is defined as, self-efficacy, other than giving significant positive influence towards readiness for change, but it is also a moderator variable between the relationship between perceived organizational support and readiness for change. This result of the research is parallel with the research done by Thakur & Kumar (2015) who shows that self-efficacy is significant to be the mediator variable. This research could be the new invention on the influence of self-efficacy as a mediator between the relationship of perceived organizational support and readiness for change in higher education, especially between lecturers in a private college.

Holt et al. (2007) explained about readiness for change that defined as comprehensive attitude influence simultaneously by four elements, which are content (implemented changes attribute), process (steps taken to implement changes), context (environmental/external attribute where change is implemented), and individual attributes (lecturers/internal attributes where change is implemented). Weiner (2020) explained organizational readiness as a mutual psychological condition where the college organization’s members feel committed to implementing changes in the organization and confident in their collective skills. Next, the factors of readiness that has the most influence analyzed empirically according to Holt et al. (2007) consist of discrepancy (believing that a particular change is needed), efficacy (believing that the changes could be implemented), organizational valance (believing that the changes could give benefits to the college organization), management support (believing that the organization’s leader committed to the change), and personal valance (believing that changes could give personal benefits).Armenakis et al. (1993) explained that creating readiness for organizational change is an effort to support the changes that preceded resistance behavior. The readiness of organizational members is explained in terms of belief, attitude, and intentions. Organizational changes and readiness from organizational members have a strong relationship with each other. This behavior will affect the behavior of college organization’s members in facing organizational changes, including growing readiness for continuously improving performance (Basuki et al., 2020; Kamar et al., 2019; Novitasari, Goestjahjanti, et al., 2020;Novitasari, Sasono, et al., 2020; Zaman et al., 2020). The result of research done by Ming-Chu & Meng-Hsiu (2015) explained that readiness for change has a direct negative effect on resistance to change, which means that readiness for change will result in positive behavior that supports the change. Indicators of readiness for change based on the factors influencing readiness for change as explained by Holt et al., (2007) consist of: (1) believing that a particular change is needed, (2) believing that leader of college organization is supportive and committed to change, (3) believing that the change could be implemented, and (4) personal benefit for lecturers due to the change.

A private college in anticipating changes needs to do internalization process in every change to all of the lecturers and also treat lecturers as one of the stakeholders and make an effort on satisfying their needs so that lecturers will give support to every one of the policies taken by the organization, including the changes as well. Therefore, this will decrease the lecturer’s resistance in facing changes that happened in the college environment. Self & Schraeder (2009) explained that when a lecturer has perceived that a college organization supports them, then they will believe that the college organization cares about them and has higher confidence within themselves and also will support the changes done by the organization if the changes have legitimacy and rationalism. The result of the research shows that there is a relationship between perceived organizational support and resistance towards changes mediated by readiness for change (Jabbarian & Chegini, 2017; Ming-Chu & Meng-Hsiu, 2015). Research is done by Ming-Chu & Meng-Hsiu (2015) also explained that there is a positive relationship between perceived organizational support and readiness for change. Meanwhile, research done by Caesens & Stinglhamber (2014); Carrell (2018); Cheng et al. (2020); Chuo et al. (2011) explained that significant relationship found between perceived organizational support towards self-efficacy, self-efficacy towards readiness for change (Andrew & Mohankumar, 2017; Emsza et al., 2016), and other research mentioned the role of self-efficacy as a mediator for both hypotheses (Thakur & Kumar, 2015).

Conclusion

From the data analysis, it is proven that perceived organizational support and self-efficacy have a significant positive influence on the readiness for change of lecturers in a private college in Indonesia. Other than that, self-efficacy also has a significant positive influence on readiness for change and it also could have a role as a mediator between the relationship of perceived organizational support and readiness for change. Another important thing from the conclusion of this research is that the items from the research instrument used are highly valid with the low number of items.it is suggested for further studies to do similar research, but using the items instrument resulted from CFA analysis as a wider use. Therefore, it could test back for its validity and reliability of this instrument. Development and expansion meant are, for example, the research in the other unit of analysis, such as employee, teachers, managers, etc. Likewise, it is also advisable to do development research in other sectors, such as industry, manufacturing, social, and other public sectors. For further studies, it is suggested to add and involve other relevant variables, so that it would make the research in the same theme as more complete and comprehensive.

References

1. Andrew, A., & Mohankumar, S. (2017). The relationship between Self-efficacy and Employee Readiness for Organizational Change. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, 5(1), 16–27.
2. Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating Readiness for Organizational Change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703.
3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
4. Bandura, A., Rumsey, M., Walker, C., & Harris, J. (1994). Regulative function of perceived self-efficacy. Personnel Selection and Classification, 261–271.
5. Caesens, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. European Review of Applied Psychology, 64(5), 259–267.
6. Carrell, W.S. (2018). Examining the mediating influence of occupational self-efficacy and perceived organizational support on the relationship between perceived managerial coaching behaviors and employee engagement among higher education enrollment management professionals.
7. Cheng, L., Cui, Y., Chen, Q., Ye, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, F., Zeng, W., & Hu, X. (2020). Paediatric nurses’ general self-efficacy, perceived organizational support and perceived professional benefits from Class A tertiary hospitals in Jilin province of China: the mediating effect of nursing practice environment. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 1–9.
8. Chin, W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling (E. Modern Methods for Business Research, In: G. A. Marcoulides (ed.)). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.
9. Chuo, Y.H., Tsai, C.H., Lan, Y.L., & Tsai, C.S. (2011). The effect of organizational support, self efficacy, and computer anxiety on the usage intention of e-learning system in hospital. African Journal of Business Management, 5(14), 5518–5523.
10. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565.
11. Emsza, B., Eliyana, A., & Istyarini, W. (2016). The relationship between self efficacy and readiness for change: The mediator roles of employee empowerment. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(3 S1), 201.
12. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39.
13. Ghozali, I. (2014). Structural Equation Modeling, Metode Alternatif dengan Partial Least Square (PLS) (4th ed.). Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
14. Greenberg, J. (2011). Behavior in Organizations Tenth Edition. Pearson Education.
15. Gundersen, A.C. (2020). Readiness to Change: The Effects of Perceived Organizational Support and Team Psychological Safety.
16. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
17. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer partial least squaresstructural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.
18. Hall, E., Chai, W., & Albrecht, J.A. (2016). Relationships between nutrition-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and behavior for fifth grade students attending Title I and non-Title I schools. Appetite, 96, 245–253.
19. Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S., & Harris, S.G. (2007). Readiness for Organizational Change: The Systematic Development of a Scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232–255.
20. Jabbarian, J., & Chegini, M.G. (2017). The effect of perceived organizational support on employee resistance to change: A study on Guilan municipal staff. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 5(4), 642–654.
21. Kamar, K., Novitasari, N., Asbari, M., Winanti., & Goestjahjanti, F.S. (2019). Enhancing Employee Performance during the Covid-19 Pandemic: the Role of Readiness for Change Mentality. Jurnal Dinamika Manajemen, 11(2), 154–166.
22. Ming-Chu, Y., & Meng-Hsiu, L. (2015). Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between perceive organizational support and resistance to change. Asia Pacific Management Review, 20(3), 177–183.
23. Mtebe, J. (2020). Examining eLearning system self-efficacy amongst instructors at the University of Dodoma, Tanzania. Open Praxis, 12(3), 343–357.
24. Ardi, A., Djati, S.P., Bernarto, I., Sudibjo, N., Yulianeu, A., Nanda, H.A., & Nanda, K.A. (2020a). The Relationship Between Digital Transformational Leadership Styles and Knowledge-Based Empowering Interaction for Increasing Organisational Innovativeness. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(3), 259–277.
25. Ardi, A., Djati, S.P., Bernarto, I., Sudibjo, N., Yulianeu, A., Nanda, H.A., & Nanda, K.A. (2020b). The Secret to Enhancing Innovativeness in the Digital Industry. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 12(12), 225–243.
26. Mulyadi., Sudibjo, N., & Bernarto, I. (2017). The Effect of Perceived Organizational Support, Work Engagement, and Job Satisfaction on Teacher’s Performance at Xyz Middle and High School. International Journal of Economic Research, 14(13), 7–19.
27. Innocentius, B., Diana, B., Niko, S., Ian, N.S., Agus, P., Masduki, A. (2020). Effect of transformational leadership, perceived organizational support, job satisfaction toward life satisfaction: Evidences from indonesian teachers. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(3). 5495 -5503.
28. Masduki, A., Laksmi, W., Choi, C.H., Agus, P., Priyono, B.S., Innocentius, B., Rudy, P., Miyv, F. (2020). The role of knowledge transfer and organizational learning tobuild innovation capability: Evidence from indonesian automotive industry. International Journal of Control and Automation, 13(1).19-322
29. Mirza, P., Masduki, A., Agus, P., Freddy, O., Sekundina, W.K., Anggaripeni, M., Gusli, C., Winanti., Ardian, S. (2020). The impacts of leadership and organizational culture on performance in indonesian public health: The mediating effects of innovative work behavior. International Journal of Control and Automation, 13(02), 216 - 227.
30. Gusli, C., Miyv, F., Ardian, S., Anggaripeni, M., Masduki, A., Agus, P. (2020). The role of organizational commitment, organizational culture and mediator organizational citizenship behavior (ocb) on employees’ performance: Evidence from indonesian automotive industry. International Journal of Control and Automation, 13(02), 615 - 633. Retrieved from
31. Lestari, M., Hendrawan, S., Rudy, P. (2020). “Learning organization in organizational management in post-conflict disaster and disaster vocational areas : A study of grounded theory”. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29 (05), 3137 -3151.
32. Sekundina, W.K., Freddy, O., Dhaniel, H., Sucipto, B., Masduki, A., Agus, P. (2020). Organizational culture, organizational commitment and employees’ performance: The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. Test Engineering & Management, 82 (2020). 18277 – 18294.
33. Nonot, Y., Vasco, G., Juliana., Innocentius, B., Rudy, P., Agus Purwanto, (2020). Repurchase intention and word of mouth factors in the millennial generation against various brands of Boba drinks during the Covid 19 pandemic. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 8(2),1-11.
34. Vasco, A.H., Goeltom., Yustisia, K., Juliana., Rudy, P., Agus, P. (2020). The influence of intrinsic, extrinsic, and consumer attitudes towards intention to stay at a Budget Hotel. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 8(2), 1-11.
35. Rudyanto., Lyly, S., Rudy, P., & Agus, P. (2020) The influence of antecedents of supply chain integration on company performance. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 8(4).
36. Ismaya, B., Setiawan, T., Sulistyarini, I., Winarti, A., Nabila, R., Purnamaningsih, I.R., Haryati., Widodo, A.P., Klau, I.C.S., & Purwanto, A. (2020) FAST Leadership Model for University Leaders Performance in Pharmacy Faculty: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(8), 362-373.
37. Yunarsih, N., Rahayu, S., Fatoni., Asra., Sustiyono, A., Anwar, T., Sri, . N. & Purwanto, . A. (2020) Develop Leadership Style Model for Nurse in Indonesian Hospital. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(8), 352-361.
38. Slamet, M.U.A.G., Asdiana., Abdillah, A., Abduloh., Fahlevi, M., Ali, R., Evanirosa., Mufid, A., Purwanto, A., Faricha, F., Khairullah., & Zumaro, A. (2020). Islamic Leadership Model for Indonesian Millennial Teachers Performance in Pharmacy Schools. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(8), 374-382.
39. Suheny, E., Arum, M., Wandi, D., Rahmat, A., kurnianingsih, A., Haerani, A., Dasmaran, V., Taryanto., Adha, S., & Purwanto, A. (2020) Develop Leadership Style Model for Indonesian SMEs Leaders During Covid-19 Pandemic. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(8), 576-586.
40. Yoyok, C., Dewiana, N., Manorang, S., Mustar, A., Mochammad, F., Multi, N., Matdio, S., Masduki, A., Agus, P. (2020). The effect of transformational leadership dimensions on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: Case studies in private university lecturers. Solid State Technology. 63(1s).158–184.
41. Vizano, N.A., Utami, W., Johanes, S., Herawati, A., Aima, H., Sutawijaya, A.H., Purwanto, A., Supono, J., Rahayu, P., Setiyani, A., & Widayati, C.C. (2020). Effect of compensation and organization commitment on tournover intention with work satisfaction as intervening variable in indonesian industries. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11 (9), 287-298.
42. Fatoni, I., Suhroji, A., Fairus, S., Octoberry, J., Mukhlasin., Ratih, A.W., Agus, P. (2020). Leadership style for indonesian public health center: Charismatic, bureaucratic, transactional, transformational, autocratic or democratic?. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(7), 115-124.
43. Riza Primahendra Tri Adi Sumbogo Reney Aquino Lensun , Agus Purwanto (2020). Handling Corona Virus Pandemic In The Indonesian Political Context: A Grounded Theory Study. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(8), 113-129.
44. Pramono, R., Sondakh, L.W., Bernarto, I., Juliana, J., Purwanto, A. (2021). Determinants of the small and medium enterprises progress: A case study of sme entrepreneurs in manado, indonesia. The Journal Of Asian Finance, Economics, And Business, 8(1), 881–889.
45. Onyishi, I.E., & Ogbodo, E. (2012). The contributions of self-efficacy and perceived organisational support when taking charge at work. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 38(1), 1–11.
46. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698.
47. Self, D.R., & Schraeder, M. (2009). Enhancing the success of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
48. Shechtman, Z., Levy, M., & Leichtentritt, J. (2005). Impact of life skills training on teachers’ perceived environment and self-efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 144–155.
49. Thakur, A., & Kumar, N. (2015). The effect of perceived organizational support, role related aspects and work involvement on work-life balance: Self-efficacy as a moderator. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(1), 1–8.
50. Verma, A., & Sharma, B. (2013). Construct validation of self-efficacy scale. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 7(4), 15.
51. Weiner, B. J. (2020). A theory of organizational readiness for change. In Handbook on Implementation Science. Edward Elgar Publishing.
52. Zaman, M.N., Novitasari, D., Goestjahjanti, F. S., Fahlevi, M., Nadeak, M., Fahmi, K., Setiawan, T., & Asbari, M. (2020). Effect of Readiness to Change and Effectiveness of Transformational Leadership on Workers ’ Performance during Covid-19 Pandemic. Solid State Technology, 63(1s), 185–200.