A Study on the Role of Leaders in Achieving Sustainable Competitiveness and Sustainability During Change

Abstract

Effective change management, corporate sustainability, and employee resilience are crucial factors that influence organizational success. This study explores how demographic factors impact these dimensions, specifically focusing on the role of leaders during change, sustainability, sustainable competitiveness, and employee resilience within a diverse workforce. Statistical analyses, including ANOVA and regression, were performed to examine the associations between demographic factors (gender, age, salary range, sector, job position, and total job experience) and the measured scales. The study found significant variations in employees’ perceptions of sustainable competitiveness based on gender and sector, with males and employees in the education sector reporting higher scores. Age and salary range significantly affected employee resilience, with younger employees and those in lower salary brackets showing higher resilience scores. The findings highlight the importance of considering demographic factors when assessing organizational performance, sustainability, and employee resilience. The gender and sector differences suggest that targeted strategies may be necessary to address specific perceptions and experiences. Additionally, younger employees and those with lower salaries demonstrate higher resilience, which could inform organizational support programs. These insights can guide future research and organizational practices aimed at enhancing employee and organizational outcomes.

1. Introduction

Change is inevitable and it is synonymous with life and growth. It is a must for businesses and organizations all over the world to go through change processes if they wish to grow and thrive. In the past several decades, change has played an important role in organizational development. Change management was first introduced by Lewin (1947). Lewin’s model of change is a framework for understanding and managing change in organizations [1]. According to Hussain et al. [1], “The model has been categorized into loops of leadership, management and organization”. Arifin [2] explained that “Change is an adaptation to adjust to environmental conditions and improve organizational performance”. Organizations that do not enforce change seem to diminish in a short period of time. According to Rajan and Ganesan [3], “The successful implementation of a change is a herculean task in any organization irrespective of its magnitude, size and complexity”.

The ultimate goal of a change process is its sustainability. As described by De Matos and Clegg [4], “The need for sustainable development is the major organizational change that contemporary businesses face”. Organizational change and sustainability are two terms that go hand in hand. According to Sroufe [5], “During a time of change, the organizational system has a transitional period before reaching a more sustainability-oriented state (MSOM)”. Change in every aspect of life comes with challenges. One major challenge that organizational change is associated with is sustainability. According to Pardo de Val and Martinez Fuentes [6], “change starts with the perception of its need, so a wrong initial perception is the first barrier to change”. Change and sustainability have been a growing trend among Saudi organizations that have aligned their visions with Saudi Vision 2030. The phenomenon of change and sustainability in Saudi Arabia’s corporate world has been on the rise for some years. Saudi Vision 2030 is aimed toward economic and organizational changes, especially when it comes to social, economic, and environmental improvements. “Sustainability has been at the heart of Vision 2030 since its inception, and it inspires others around the world to share in building a sustainable tomorrow” [7].

This study builds on prior research on the role of leaders during change for sustainability, and offers a mediator/moderator model [8] where sustainable competitiveness mediates the relationship between the role of the leader in change and its sustainability. Employee resilience acts as a moderator in the role of leaders in change and sustainability.

The purpose of this study is to establish a level of understanding among leaders, employees, and human resource professionals concerning change and sustainability in private sectors going through organizational change in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This study aims to help HR professionals to achieve sustainability by assessing sustainable competitiveness and measuring employee resilience during change.

This study was based on a review of the existing literature on change and sustainability. Several scholars have explored these topics and their connection in organizations, schools, and hospitals around the world. Abbas and Asghar [9] stated that the “role of a leadership/leader is very important while managing organizations or addressing the issue of organizational change”.

Nevertheless, it still appears that there is a lack of empirical research on these topics with regards to HR practices in Saudi Arabia in the present context, as Saudi Arabia itself is in a transition stage and several governmental sectors have been going through many changes to align their vision with Saudi Vision 2030. According to Mahdi and Nassar [10], “it is commonly understood that most organizations, regardless of sector, should acknowledge that gaining competitive advantages is the most difficult issue facing businesses in the twenty-first century”.

Although many scholars have explored the link between leadership and sustainability [11,12,13,14], there is still much to learn about the role leaders play in achieving sustainability during change in the Saudi context. From the literature review, research linking the role of leaders in change processes to sustainability in the context of Saudi Arabia was found to be scarce [15]. Therefore, the proposed research aims to fill the gaps in the literature regarding the relationships between the variables of the study.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Role of Leader in Change Process (ROLC)

Leaders play a vital role in driving sustainable change by creating a shared vision and empowering employees to get involved in the change process. The success of implementing organizational change is believed to be dependent on the actions of the leader during the change process [16]. Yue et al. [17] suggested that “Organizational changes have increased pressure on organizational leaders, who play an important role in affecting organizational change implementation” (p. 1). Mehta et al. [18] noted that “Since the rate of change today is greater than any time in history, it has become increasingly important for organizations to manage and handle the change process to remain relevant and be sustainable” (p. 2). Executing change in an organization is an effective approach to sustainability in business. According to Abbas and Asghar [9], “Organizational changes provide different significant benefits e.g., it improves competitiveness, improves financial performance, enhances employees and customer satisfaction and most important is that it leads organization towards continuous improvement and sustainability” (p. 18). Drawing on the theory of change [19], it is a leader’s responsibility to articulate the desired long-term goals and outcomes of an initiative. The role of the leader in the change process is essential and could lead to either success or failure. Bateh et al. [20] stated that “leaders usually direct organizational change, so that they can inspire sustainability changes in their organizations” (p. 3). It is anticipated that the leader possesses many skills that will help them lead the change process effectively. As explained by Afandi and Ansari [13], “The process of change demands an effective and highly skilled leadership that is able to perceive the most desirable feature and address the issues in the most appropriate manner” (p. 3).

Mehta et al. [18] stated that the role of leaders in change involves encouraging employees to take risks, having easy and clear connection between leaders and employees and among employees themselves, making sure that all employees are aware of change and have the proper information to assess their concerns and, finally, having common goals among leaders and employees to achieve accomplishments. Leaders play many roles in the change process, such as vision setting, communication, motivation, and monitoring and evaluating employees during and after change. Vision setting requires the leader to clearly articulate their vision for change to employees and assess any attitudes towards this change. According to Bateh et al. [20], “one primary responsibility of leaders is to ensure dissemination of an organizational vision that includes sustainability principles, followed by structures and processes that will sustain long-term success” (p. 399). Effective leaders are ones who take on an inspirational role and have a clear vision and values, as opposed to economic transactions between themselves and their employees [11]. Penava and Šehić [21] reinforced this belief by stating that “Leadership behavior that is supportive and facilitative has a stronger link with the success of change than the so-called ‘leader-centric’ approach, which implies leading a change through personal involvement, persuasion, and influence” (p. 132). Jung’s [22] study found that empowering leadership has a positive effect on employees’ commitment to organizational change. This indicates that behaviors such as leading by example, participative decision-making, coaching, informing, and leaders showing concern can significantly enhance employees’ commitment to change initiatives.

Communicating the change effectively with employees is one of the main roles a leader plays in change. By addressing concerns or resistance, leaders can provide regular updates regarding the change process and celebrate success along the way. According to Kurt Lewin’s (1947) change model, three stages of action should be taken if change should be forgone. The three stages of the change model are unfreezing, change, and freezing. The first stage of the change model is unfreezing, which involves the process of creating awareness of the need for change [23]. A leader’s communication skills in an organization reflect his or her attempts to provide necessary information to employees and ease the flow of information from the top downwards [24]. According to Yue et al. [17], “Effective leadership cannot function in its fullest capacity without communication. The adoption of transparent internal communication demonstrates organizational leaders’ genuine interest in maintaining or enhancing relationships with employees” (p. 4).

Leaders can also motivate their employees towards accepting the change. Farahnak et al. [25] said that “leaders may use inspirational motivation to depict a positive vision for how the organization and the employees will be more effective as a result of implementing the change” (p. 100). According to Banmairuroy et al. [26], “It was believed that the knowledge-oriented leader could help search for open innovation and eventually lead to sustainable competitive advantage” (p. 201). Planning and motivation can be part of the leader’s role during a change process. These are part of Lewin’s change model, the second stage of which is change. Hussain et al. [1] stated that leaders use multiple methods of motivation during this stage to assess their employees during change.

The third stage of Lewin’s model is refreezing. During this stage, monitoring and evaluation are a part of a leader’s role in sustaining the change. According to Shirey [27], “during this stage demands stabilizing the change so that it becomes embedded into existing systems” (p. 72).

According to Garavan et al. [12], “Human capital theory characterizes leaders as human resources. It is assumed that investment in leadership development will result in a payoff to the organization provided there is a focus on developing firm specific leadership skills” (p. 358). Leaders need to act as change agents when necessary by modeling a desired behavior, which requires taking action to push forward the change and calculate risks. As explained by Afandi and Ansari [13], “The leader acts as a change agent because a successful leader creates an environment that persuades employees towards a common goal and motivates them through effective communication, and plan employees’ actions, etc.” (p. 3).

2.2. Sustainability

Sustainability does not mean longevity, rather it addresses how particular initiatives can be developed without compromising the development of others in the surrounding environment at any time [28]. Sustainability often requires significant changes to an organization’s structure, culture, and operations. According to the World Commission on Environment and Development (1978), sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [29] (p. 17). Zhang et al. [30] stated that “the concept of sustainability has become essential to help firms achieve their performance targets. High sustainability helps firms to improve different processes which make them outperform competitors in the long run” (p. 7).

When attempting to implement change in an organization, it is important to consider the potential environmental, social, and economic impacts of sustainability in the change process. To incorporate sustainability into organizational change is to adopt the ‘triple bottom line’ approach. According to Sridhar and Jones [31], “The main function of the TBL approach is to make corporations aware of the environmental and social values they add or destroy in the world, in addition to the economic value they add” (p. 92). Sustainability involves finding a balance between economic, social, and environmental factors to ensure that the organizational goals thrive. According to Karman and Savaneviciene [32], “Sustainability practices help organizations to develop opportunities and manage economic, environmental, and social risks, creating value over the long term” (p. 324). The major goal of sustainability is to meet the needs of the present without compromising future goals. As suggested by Harrington [33], the “Pursuit of sustainability or sustainable development implies that the goal is to maintain or improve beneficial conditions (to sustain them), particularly with improved capacity to extend desirable conditions over the long term” (p. 367).

The role of leaders in change processes and their relationship with sustainability has been discussed in many studies in the western world [9,14,34,35]. However, in Saudi Arabia, there are no studies on the relationship between the role leaders play in change processes and sustainability in the Saudi context, nor in the semi-government sector specifically. Therefore, considering the role of leaders in the change process and its impact on sustainability, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: 

ROLC is positively associated with sustainability.

2.3. The Mediating Role of Sustainable Competitiveness in the Relationship Between ROLC and Sustainability

Competitiveness was defined by Porter in 1990 as “the ability of the country to create innovations in order to achieve advantages over other nations” [36] (p. 1657). In a broad sense, competitiveness is understood to be related to firms and products, while other researchers view competitiveness as the overall performance of different sectors within one specific region or country [37]. The concept of sustainable competitive advantage was first introduced by Coyne in 1986. Coyne [38] interprets sustainable competitiveness as “a set of assets, characteristics, or capabilities that allow an organization to meet its goals better than its competitors”. Sustainable competitiveness at the organizational level is defined as “an organizations’ potentialities to produce the right products and services of the right quality at the right price and time” [37] (p. 343). The World Economic Forum (2015) extended the definition of sustainable competitiveness to “the set of institutions, policies, and factors that make a nation productive over the longer term while ensuring social and environmental sustainability” [39] (p. 37). Competitiveness in this context refers to “the level of local (national or regional) productivity rather than market-share or cost competitiveness which focus on cost-efficiency or the ability of nations to compete in the international market” [39] (p. 37).

The International Institute of Management Development (IMD) have settled on an academic definition of competitiveness, stating that “Competitiveness of Nations is a field of Economic theory, which analyses the fact and policies that shape the ability of a nation to create and maintain an environment that sustains more value creation for its enterprises and more prosperity for its people” [40] (p. 610). Scholars and institutions have worked on many definitions of sustainable competitiveness, depending on the situation where the concept is used. The term sustainable competitiveness is related to sustainable development, binding three key economic, environmental, and social elements. Balkyte and Tvaronavičiene [37] noted that “economic dynamism and social progress, sustainability and competitiveness go hand-in-hand.” (p. 359).

Karman and Savaneviciene [32] pointed out that “organizations need to develop in a sustainable way to realize their potential and gain sustainable competitiveness” (p. 318). According to Doyle and Perez-Alaniz [39], “the environmental and social elements of sustainable development are often studied entirely separately in conjunction with economic growth-despite the core message that sustainability of the social and the environmental are deeply embedded in each other” (p. 37). Popescu et al. [41] noted that “In a global and multifunctional economy, measuring the sustainable competitiveness represents a challenge for scholars and practitioners in order to assess sustainable development in all its dimensions—economic, social, and human wellbeing” (p. 2). Many western scholars have explored the topic of sustainable competitiveness within their western context [30,32,39,42]. Despotovi et al. [36] explored the topic of sustainable competitiveness and its relation to change in 34 European countries. Wysokinska [42] specified that in Eastern Europe, it is “observed there is a strong correlation between the sustainable competitiveness of the economy and the growing productivity of its different sectors on the global market” (p. 14). Sustainable competitiveness as a mediation between the role of the leader during change and sustainability in a theoretical model was not explored in the Saudi context, making it a major gap to be tested in this study. Therefore, the following hypotheses are presented:

H2: 

ROLC is positively associated with sustainable competitiveness.

H3: 

Sustainable competitiveness mediates the relationship between ROLC and sustainability.

2.4. Employee Resilience as a Moderator Between ROLC and Sustainability

The Employee Resilience Research group defines employee resilience as “an ability to thrive in a changing environment, which is facilitated by organizational initiatives. This means that organizations play a key role in how well their employees are able to adjust and perform under pressure.” [43] (p. 5). Previous literature offered many definitions of employee resilience. The most common is Bonanno’s [44] perspective, where resilience is viewed as the stability of an individual when faced with any life changing circumstances.

Research shows that resilient employees tend to adapt easily to changing work environments and that organizations are more capable of achieving sustainability if they train and develop employees to be more resilient to change [45,46,47,48,49]. Lu et al. [49] stated that certain human resource practices tend to direct employees towards sustainable competitiveness by training employees in decision-making, equality, and ethical sustainable behaviors, and by improving employee wellbeing.

Aguiar-Quintana and colleagues found that resilient employees are more capable of dealing with negativity than less resilient employees [50], while Souza and colleagues stated that “resilience was the motor to enhance the capability of sustainable initiatives” [46] (p. 595). Liang and Cao [48] stated that employee resilience has a significant positive impact on organizational change, suggesting that resilient employees contribute to the overall resilience of the organization. Their findings suggest that fostering employee resilience is crucial for enhancing organizations going through change, particularly through promoting problem-focused coping strategies and ensuring strong managerial resilience to support employees. According to Alibašić [47], “Organizations use a sustainability and resilience plan to further good governance and improve the operational efficiency” (p. 19).

H4: 

Employee resilience moderates the relationship between ROLC and sustainability.

Based on the above discussion, Figure 1 represents the study’s model.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Design and Sample

By utilizing a proper philosophical research approach, researchers can execute a methodology that explicates the research problem [51]. This research is designed to structure a plan that offers a clear idea on the method and procedures being used in the study; it contains the process of collecting data, and testing and analyzing the data to explain the relationships between the hypotheses and answer the research questions. The research design consists of the chosen research method, sample choice, the process of collecting, processing, and analyzing the data, and finally, delivering results [52].

This is a cross-sectional research study. Cross-sectional research design involves analyzing data from several sectors at a certain point in time [52]. The targeted population consists of employees from several public and private sectors that went through organizational change in Saudi Arabia. The sample selection utilizes a probability random sampling method, which ensures that every employee in the targeted population has an equal chance of inclusion. This approach is particularly suitable for addressing the research questions, as it enhances the representativeness and generalizability of the findings to a broader population of those experiencing similar organizational changes [53]. To maintain rigor, gender, age, education, and years in position were set as control variables.

Data collection was conducted using a closed-ended questionnaire, distributed in both English and Arabic to cater to the linguistic diversity within Saudi Arabia. The sample size had to have a minimum of 350 respondents to achieve statistically meaningful results. This number was determined based on Cochran’s sample size formula for random sampling, adjusted for a 95% confidence level and a margin of error of 5%. This sample size also aligns with best practices for ensuring reliable statistical power in structural equation modeling (SEM) [54]. The subject to item method was based on Bentler and Chao [55], who suggest using five observations per estimated parameter. Thus, the target sample size was 350. The sample consisted of both male and female employees in different positions and backgrounds in the public and private sectors of Saudi Arabia during the period of March–June 2024.

The questionnaire was translated into Arabic using forward translation by a bilingual Saudi Arabian native. It was then translated back to English using backward translation by means of Brislin’s method [56]. The backward translation was conducted by a bilingual English linguistics professor from Saudi Arabia, who did not have access to the original English version of the questionnaire in order to exclude any error in meaning. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 22 and Mplus 8. These software packages were selected due to their comprehensive statistical capabilities, particularly in factor analysis and structural equation modeling.

3.2. Measures

To ensure consistency and clarity, each measure was carefully chosen for its relevance to the study’s variables and its established reliability in previous studies. Each scale is described below, along with its psychometric properties and justification for use.

The role of the leader in change was measured using the Change Leadership Competency Questionnaire, developed by Gilley [57]. This scale has five domains (visionary, inspirer, supporter, problem solver, and change manager). For the purpose of this study, only the “change manager” domain was used, as it specifically addresses leaders’ competencies in facilitating change processes. This domain includes 21 items measured on a 4-point Likert scale, with answers ranging from (rarely) to (always).

Sustainability was measured using the Corporate Sustainability Development Scale developed by Bansal [58], Chan [59], and Sharma and Vredenburg [60]. This scale evaluates three domains: social development, economic development, and environmental development, with six items each in the first two domains and ten items in the third. A 7-point Likert-type scale, with answers ranging from (to a small extent) to (to a larger extent), was utilized to capture respondents’ attitudes toward sustainability.

Sustainable competitiveness was measured using the Sustainable Competitive advantage scale developed by Hung et al. [61], Sigalas et al. [62], and Sigalas and Papadakis [63]. This scale has three domains: organizational performance, firm competitiveness, and organizational sustainability and competitive advantage, with 6, 4, and 2 items, respectively. A 5-point Likert-type scale, with answers ranging from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree), was chosen to measure this variable as it provides a balanced range for capturing the degree of agreement.

Employee resilience was measured using the Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes) developed by Näswall et al. [43]. This 9-item scale employs a 7-point Likert scale, with answers ranging from never to almost always, to capture resilience levels among employees across various organizational contexts.

3.3. Contextual Considerations and Limitations

The unique sociocultural and organizational context of Saudi Arabia is acknowledged as a factor that potentially influenced the study’s findings. Saudi Arabia’s recent economic diversification and reforms under Vision 2030 introduced specific contextual factors that may impact employees’ responses to change, sustainability, and resilience [64]. This study recognizes that these sociocultural dimensions may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions or cultures [65]. Future studies could explore additional contextual nuances to address these limitations more comprehensively.

3.4. Data Analysis

To validate the model constructs, both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted. SPSS version 22 facilitated the EFA, using maximum likelihood factoring and promax oblique rotation to ensure that factors were adequately distinguished but allowed to correlate. MPlus 8 was employed to perform (CFA), assess common method bias (CMB), evaluate measurement invariance, and conduct structural equation modeling (SEM). These analyses provide insights into the validity and reliability of the constructs, supporting the rigor of the methodology and the robustness of the findings.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

The study sample consisted of 202 males (57.7%) and 148 females (42.3%). The age distribution was as follows: 94 participants (26.9%) were under 30 years old, 129 participants (36.9%) were aged 30–35, 105 participants (30.0%) were aged 36–40, and 22 participants (6.3%) were over 40 years old. In terms of salary range, 82 participants (23.4%) earned between 5000 and 10,000, 175 participants (50.0%) earned between 10,000 and 15,000, 70 participants (20.0%) earned between 15,000 and 20,000, and 23 participants (6.6%) earned over 20,000. Sector-wise, 46 participants (13.1%) were in education, 61 participants (17.4%) were in finance, 93 participants (26.6%) were in health, 56 participants (16.0%) were in operational roles, and 94 participants (26.9%) were in other sectors. Regarding job position, 68 participants (19.4%) were in administration, 34 participants (9.7%) were in operations, 4 participants (1.1%) were executives, 45 participants (12.9%) were managers, and 199 participants (56.9%) held other positions. Total job experience was categorized as follows: 60 participants (17.1%) had less than 5 years of experience, 172 participants (49.1%) had 5–10 years, 95 participants (27.1%) had 10–15 years, and 23 participants (6.6%) had over 15 years experience, as shown in

Table 1. Demographic factors of the participants (N = 350).

		Count	Column N %
Gender	Male	202	57.7%
	Female	148	42.3%
Age	<30 years	94	26.9%
	30–35	129	36.9%
	36–40	105	30.0%
	>40 years	22	6.3%
Salary Range	5000–10,000	82	23.4%
	10,000–15,000	175	50.0%
	15,000–20,000	70	20.0%
	20,000+	23	6.6%
Sector	Education	46	13.1%
	Financial	61	17.4%
	Health	93	26.6%
	Operational	56	16.0%
	Other	94	26.9%
Job Position	Administration	68	19.4%
	Operation	34	9.7%
	Executive	4	1.1%
	Manager	45	12.9%
	Other	199	56.9%
Total Job Experience	<5 years	60	17.1%
	5–10 years	172	49.1%
	10–15 years	95	27.1%
	>15 years	23	6.6%

.

The results for the different scales are as follows. The “Change Manager” domain from the Change Leadership Competency Questionnaire developed by Gilley [66] had a mean score of 59.76 with a standard deviation of 3.81, ranging from 49.00 to 69.00. For the Corporate Sustainability Development Scale, the mean score for social development was 20.35 (SD = 3.00, range 12.00–27.00), for economic development was 19.90 (SD = 3.49, range 10.00–29.00), and for environmental development was 30.16 (SD = 4.71, range 16.00–46.00). In the Sustainable Competitive Advantage Scale, organizational performance had a mean score of 23.02 (SD = 3.12, range 11.00–29.00), firm competitiveness had a mean score of 15.37 (SD = 2.24, range 8.00–20.00), and organizational sustainability and competitive advantage had a mean score of 7.66 (SD = 1.41, range 2.00–10.00), with a total mean score of 46.05 (SD = 4.46, range 27.00–56.00). The Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes) had a mean score of 39.56 (SD = 4.81), with scores ranging from 26.00 to 51.00, as shown in

Table 2. The results of different scales of change manager, the Corporate Sustainability Development Scale, the Sustainable Competitive Advantage Scale, and the EmpRes.

		Mean	Standard Deviation	Minimum	Maximum
The Change Leadership Competency Questionnaire, developed by Gilley (2005), “change manager”		59.76	3.81	49.00	69.00
The Corporate Sustainability Development Scale	Social development	20.35	3.00	12.00	27.00
	Economic development	19.90	3.49	10.00	29.00
	Environmental development	30.16	4.71	16.00	46.00
The Sustainable Competitive Advantage Scale	Organizational performance	23.02	3.12	11.00	29.00
	Firm competitiveness	15.37	2.24	8.00	20.00
	Organizational sustainability and competitive advantage	7.66	1.41	2.00	10.00
	Total	46.05	4.46	27.00	56.00
The Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes)		39.56	4.81	26.00	51.00

.

The mean scores for the “change manager” domain from the Change Leadership Competency Questionnaire showed slight variations across demographic factors. For gender, males scored a mean of 59.97 (SD = 3.68) and females scored 59.49 (SD = 3.96), with a p-value of 0.245 indicating no significant difference. Age groups had mean scores ranging from 59.52 for those under 30 years to 60.05 for those over 40 years, with a p-value of 0.843 showing no significant variation. Salary ranges had mean scores ranging from 58.83 for those earning 20,000+ to 60.02 for those earning 5000–10,000, with a p-value of 0.552. By sector, mean scores ranged from 58.69 in finance to 60.39 in operational roles, with a p-value of 0.062. Job positions showed mean scores ranging from 58.75 for executives to 59.93 for managers and those in other positions, with a p-value of 0.791. Total job experience showed mean scores ranging from 59.32 for those with less than 5 years to 59.91 for those with over 15 years, with a p-value of 0.800 indicating no significant differences across experience levels shown in

Table 3. The association between the change manager scale and demographic factors.

		The Change Leadership Competency Questionnaire “Change Manger”
		Mean	Standard Deviation	p-Value
Gender	Male	59.97	3.68	0.245
	Female	59.49	3.96
Age	<30 years	59.52	4.07	0.843
	30–35	59.95	3.72
	36–40	59.70	3.75
	>40 years	60.05	3.57
Salary range	5000–10,000	60.02	3.87	0.552
	10,000–15,000	59.85	3.78
	15,000–20,000	59.54	3.59
	20,000+	58.83	4.47
Sector	Education	60.35	3.76	0.062
	Financial	58.69	3.44
	Health	60.12	4.01
	Operational	60.39	3.75
	Other	59.45	3.78
Job position	Administration	59.35	3.54	0.791
	Operation	59.50	3.78
	Executive	58.75	4.11
	Manager	59.93	3.91
	Other	59.93	3.89
Total job experience	<5 years	59.32	3.82	0.800
	5–10 years	59.87	3.77
	10–15 years	59.82	3.96
	>15 years	59.91	3.54

.

The analysis of the Corporate Sustainability Development Scale revealed that economic development scores significantly varied by job position, with executives scoring notably higher (mean = 21.25) compared to other positions (mean ranging from 19.41 to 20.72, p-value = 0.032). Gender, age, salary range, sector, and total job experience did not show significant differences across the social, economic, or environmental development dimensions, with all p-values exceeding 0.05, as shown in

Table 4. The association between the Corporate Sustainability Development Scale and Demographic Factors.

		The Corporate Sustainability Development Scale
		Social Development		Economic Development		Environmental Development
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Gender	Male	20.38	3.19	19.66	3.47	30.01	4.77
	Female	20.30	2.73	20.23	3.51	30.36	4.63
	p-Value	0.813		0.134		0.487
Age	<30 years	20.12	3.00	19.63	3.45	29.89	5.27
	30–35	20.23	2.94	19.74	3.67	30.36	4.55
	36–40	20.45	3.02	20.30	3.33	30.09	4.63
	>40 years	21.55	3.19	20.09	3.38	30.50	3.47
	p-Value	0.225		0.513		0.882
Salary range	5000–10,000	20.29	3.08	19.79	3.58	29.44	5.17
	10,000–15,000	20.38	2.90	19.65	3.48	30.06	4.70
	15,000–20,000	20.03	3.11	20.80	3.56	30.99	4.59
	20,000+	21.26	3.21	19.48	2.71	30.96	2.74
	p-Value	0.398		0.114		0.186
Sector	Education	20.52	2.72	19.83	3.12	30.63	3.85
	Financial	19.98	2.72	20.16	3.34	31.15	4.17
	Health	20.56	2.96	19.94	3.86	29.72	4.68
	Operational	20.48	3.09	19.79	3.54	30.14	5.20
	Other	20.21	3.31	19.81	3.40	29.73	5.09
	p-Value	0.772		0.974		0.317
Job position	Administration	20.91	2.70	20.72	3.25	30.99	4.68
	Operation	20.24	3.15	20.00	3.85	30.38	3.95
	Executive	19.50	1.00	21.25	3.30	34.00	2.45
	Manager	20.60	3.07	20.67	3.25	30.33	5.13
	Other	20.14	3.08	19.41	3.50	29.72	4.73
	p-Value	0.397		0.032 *		0.158
Total job experience	<5 years	20.22	2.80	19.73	3.34	29.72	5.50
	5–10 years	20.13	3.03	19.74	3.54	30.12	4.65
	10–15 years	20.57	3.06	20.39	3.52	30.35	4.61
	>15 years	21.43	2.95	19.57	3.44	30.87	3.24
	p-Value	0.207		0.462		0.750

Note(s): * p-value ≤ 0.05.

.

The Sustainable Competitive Advantage Scale showed significant differences based on gender and sector. Males scored higher in organizational performance (mean = 23.33) compared to females (mean = 22.61, p-value = 0.033) and in the total score (mean = 46.69 vs. 45.18, p-value = 0.002). Age groups did not show significant differences in organizational performance, but those over 40 years scored higher in firm competitiveness (mean = 15.41) compared to younger groups (p-value = 0.023). In terms of sector, significant differences were noted in organizational performance, with the education sector scoring highest (mean = 23.54, p-value = 0.002) and operational sector scoring lowest (mean = 21.86, p-value = 0.013). Job position significantly impacted organizational performance, with executives scoring the lowest (mean = 20.00) and those in other positions scoring the highest (mean = 23.51, p-value = 0.001). Salary range and total job experience did not show significant differences in the scales shown in

Table 5. The association between the Corporate Sustainability Development Scale and demographic factors.

		The Corporate Sustainability Development Scale
		Organizational Performance		Firm Competitiveness		Organizational Sustainability and Competitive Advantage
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Gender	Male	23.33	2.79	15.61	2.02	7.75	1.42
	Female	22.61	3.49	15.05	2.48	7.53	1.40
	p-Value	0.033 *		0.020 *		0.141
Age	<30 years	22.89	3.12	15.74	2.00	7.79	1.30
	30–35	23.05	2.97	15.53	2.23	7.53	1.47
	36–40	22.88	3.45	14.83	2.48	7.64	1.47
	>40 years	24.09	2.04	15.41	1.59	7.95	1.21
	p-Value	0.395		0.023 *		0.412
Salary range	5000–10,000	23.12	3.03	15.80	2.09	7.88	1.24
	10,000–15,000	23.34	3.05	15.23	2.34	7.57	1.50
	15,000–20,000	21.93	3.41	15.26	2.22	7.56	1.47
	20,000+	23.57	2.33	15.22	1.95	7.83	1.07
	p-Value	0.010 *		0.260		0.345
Sector	Education	23.54	2.38	15.00	2.09	8.07	1.16
	Financial	22.31	3.57	14.95	2.42	7.52	1.67
	Health	23.58	2.49	15.86	2.05	7.62	1.39
	Operational	21.86	3.81	14.84	2.67	7.52	1.45
	Other	23.37	3.02	15.66	1.98	7.66	1.33
	p-Value	0.002 *		0.013 *		0.291
Job position	Administration	22.19	3.68	15.00	2.55	7.47	1.58
	Operation	21.85	3.77	14.88	2.38	7.71	1.36
	Executive	20.00	4.83	14.75	.96	8.25	1.71
	Manager	23.29	2.97	15.33	2.14	7.58	1.42
	Other	23.51	2.64	15.60	2.12	7.72	1.36
	p-Value	0.001 *		0.203		0.656
Total job experience	<5 years	22.72	3.89	15.28	2.33	7.73	1.39
	5–10 years	22.85	2.86	15.52	2.23	7.52	1.40
	10–15 years	23.40	3.02	15.19	2.29	7.92	1.42
	>15 years	23.52	3.15	15.26	1.84	7.43	1.44
	p-Value	0.385		0.682		0.123

Note(s): * p-value ≤ 0.05.

.

The Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes) revealed significant variations based on age, salary range, sector, and total job experience. Younger employees under the age of 30 years had higher resilience scores (mean = 39.73) compared to those over 40 years (mean = 35.68, p-value = 0.001). Employees in the lower salary range (5000–10,000) reported higher resilience (mean = 40.76) compared to those in higher salary brackets (mean = 35.52 for 20,000+). In the sector analysis, those in education had the highest resilience (mean = 40.50, p-value = 0.039). Additionally, employees with less than 5 years of experience had higher resilience (mean = 40.00) compared to those with more than 15 years (mean = 36.48, p-value = 0.016). Gender, job position, and most salary ranges did not show significant differences shown in

Table 6. The association between the Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes) and demographic factors.

		The Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes)
		Mean	Standard Deviation	p-Value
Gender	Male	39.84	5.12	0.197
	Female	39.17	4.34
Age	<30 years	39.73	4.67	0.001 **
	30–35	40.11	4.53
	36–40	39.53	4.85
	>40 years	35.68	5.38
Salary range	5000–10,000	40.76	4.52	0.000 *
	10,000–15,000	39.62	4.75
	15,000–20,000	39.31	4.54
	20,000+	35.52	5.14
Sector	Education	40.50	5.20	0.039 *
	Financial	38.49	4.19
	Health	38.90	4.89
	Operational	39.46	5.16
	Other	40.49	4.52
Job position	Administration	39.28	4.77	0.456
	Operation	38.82	4.83
	Executive	37.00	6.16
	Manager	39.13	5.25
	Other	39.92	4.70
Total job experience	<5 years	40.00	4.58	0.016 *
	5–10 years	39.70	4.57
	10–15 years	39.77	4.97
	>15 years	36.48	5.63

Note(s): * p-value ≤ 0.05, Note(s): ** p-value ≤ 0.001.

.

In

Table 7. Confirmatory factor analysis.

Construct	Items	Factor Loading	CR	AVE
The Change Leadership Competency	ROLC1	0.812	0.879	0.798
	ROLC2	0.782
	ROLC3	0.982
	ROLC4	0.912
	ROLC5	0.875
	ROLC6	0.789
	ROCL7	0.745
	ROCL8	0.910
	ROCL9	0.819
	ROCL10	0.785
	ROCL11	0.915
	ROCL12	0.879
	ROCL13	0.784
	ROCL14	0.874
	ROCL15	0.758
	ROCL16	0.798
	ROCL17	0.805
	ROCL18	0.982
	ROCL19	0.823
	ROCL20	0.827
	ROCL21	0.839
The Corporate Sustainability Development Scale	CSDS1	0.847	0.879	0.821
	CSDS2	0.921
	CSDS3	0.789
	CSDS4	0.795
	CSDS5	0.821
	CSDS6	0.935
	CSDS7	0.898
	CSDS8	0.873
	CSDS9	0.789
	CSDS10	0.981
	CSDS11	0.752
	CSDS12	0.798
	CSDS13	0.854
	CSDS14	0.923
	CSDS15	0.895
	CSDS16	0.789
	CSDS17	0.821
	CSDS18	0.893
	CSDS19	0.974
	CSDS20	0.895
	CSDS21	0.874
	CSDS22	0.785
The Sustainable Competitive Advantage scale	SCAS1	0.874	0.825	0.723
	SCAS2	0.758
	SCAS3	0.756
	SCAS4	0.832
	SCAS5	0.987
	SCAS6	0.923
	SCAS7	0.758
	SCAS8	0.810
	SCAS9	0.921
	SCAS10	0.898
	SCAS11	0.874
	SCAS12	0.845
The Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes)	EmpRes1	0.932	0.895	0.798
	EmpRes2	0.895
	EmpRes3	0.874
	EmpRes4	0.735
	EmpRes5	0.982
	EmpRes6	0.875
	EmpRes7	0.758
	EmpRes8	0.825
	EmpRes9	0.932

, the factor loading of the different variables of our study was presented and considered sufficiently high and statistically significant, while composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded the recommended values of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively [67]. The results confirmed the validity of the construct.

4.2. Hypotheses Testing

To test the structural model, control variables were included in the model. According to the literature, the demographic variables, namely gender, age, salary range, sector, job position, and total job experience, can be considered important predictors of the role of leaders in change, sustainability, sustainable competitiveness, and employee resilience [4,10,26,34]

Table 8. Structural model results.

Relationships	Standardized Coefficients	SE	95% CI
			LL	UL
ROLC–sustainability	0.608	0.021	0.587	0.629
ROLC–sustainable competitiveness	0.108	0.012	0.096	0.120
Sustainable competitiveness–sustainability	−0.141	0.001	−0.142	−0.140
Employee resilience–ROLC	0.113	0.001	0.432	0.547
Employee resilience–sustainability	0.467	0.002	0.104	0.327

shows the results of the tested structural model and hypotheses. The results indicate that ROLC has a positive and significant effect on sustainability (0.608, p < 0.00). Hence, H1 is supported. Furthermore, the results revealed that there is a positive and significant relationship between ROLC and sustainable competitiveness (0.108, p < 0.00). Thus, H2 is supported. The analysis indicates a statistically significant negative coefficient between sustainable competitiveness and sustainability (−0.141, p < 0.00), suggesting that higher sustainable competitiveness does not positively influence sustainability as hypothesized; in fact, the relationship is slightly negative. Given these findings, there is insufficient evidence to support H3, as sustainable competitiveness does not appear to serve as a positive mediator between ROLC and sustainability in this model. In addition, the results showed a significant effect of employee resilience on both ROLC (0.113, p < 0.00) and sustainability (0.467, p < 0.00), supporting H4.

5. Discussion

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the effect of sustainable competitiveness on the role of leaders during change, considering the mediating role of sustainability in the relationship between sustainable competitiveness and sustainability among employees in the private sector of Saudi Arabia. This study aimed to explore the relationships between various demographic factors and several key scales, including the Change Leadership Competency Questionnaire, the Corporate Sustainability Development Scale, the Sustainable Competitive Advantage Scale, and the Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes). The results provide valuable insights into how demographic variables influence organizational performance, sustainability, competitive advantage, and employee resilience.

5.1. Change Management and Demographic Factors

The Change Leadership Competency Questionnaire’s “change manager” domain showed a mean score of 59.76, indicating a generally positive perception of change management among employees. Analysis of demographic factors revealed no significant differences in “change manager” scores across gender, age, salary range, sector, job position, or total job experience, suggesting a consistent perception of change management competencies among diverse employee groups. This finding aligns with the work of previous studies, which suggested that effective change management skills are broadly applicable across various demographic groups [66,68].

5.2. Corporate Sustainability Development

The Corporate Sustainability Development Scale results highlighted notable differences in economic development scores based on job position and sector. Specifically, executives reported higher scores in economic development (mean = 21.25) compared to other positions, which may reflect their strategic involvement in sustainability initiatives [55,69,70]. Additionally, significant differences in organizational performance were observed among sectors, with the education sector scoring highest (mean = 23.54), which could be attributed to its emphasis on long-term sustainability [71]. However, gender, age, and salary range did not significantly impact the dimensions of sustainability, suggesting a uniform approach to sustainability across these demographics.

5.3. Sustainable Competitive Advantage

The Sustainable Competitive Advantage Scale results indicated significant gender differences in organizational performance and total scores, with males reporting higher scores than females (p-values = 0.033 and 0.002, respectively). This finding suggests a potential disparity in how different genders perceive or experience organizational performance, which could be influenced by variations in roles and responsibilities [71,72,73]. While these statistical findings reflect real differences in perceptions and experiences between genders, it is essential to interpret them within the broader context of the social and business environment. In many organizational settings, cultural norms and expectations can profoundly influence how different genders perceive and engage with their work [74].

In Saudi Arabia, where traditional gender roles have historically shaped the workplace dynamics, men may feel more empowered to express confidence in their organizational contributions [75]. This empowerment can stem from social structures that prioritize male leadership and visibility in professional contexts. Such societal norms can lead to an environment where males are more likely to report higher performance scores, potentially skewing perceptions of organizational success. Moreover, the business environment itself plays a critical role in shaping these dynamics.

As organizations strive for sustainability and competitiveness, they often emphasize attributes that are traditionally associated with male leadership styles, such as assertiveness and risk-taking. This emphasis may inadvertently favor male employees in performance evaluations and organizational advancement, leading to higher self-reported scores in measurements of sustainable competitive advantage. It is crucial to recognize that these findings may also reflect systemic biases within the evaluation processes or in organizational cultures that may undervalue the contributions of female employees [73].

As organizations work towards aligning with initiatives such as Saudi Vision 2030, which aims to empower women and promote gender equality, it is imperative to consider how these social and business environments can evolve to support a more equitable representation of both genders in assessments of performance and competitive advantage [75].

Sector-based analysis also revealed significant differences in organizational performance, with the education sector again scoring highest (mean = 23.54), supporting the notion that certain sectors prioritize competitive advantage differently [76,77]. Job position had a significant impact on organizational performance, with executives scoring the lowest, potentially due to the high demands and challenges associated with leadership roles [78,79].

Furthermore, the results revealed a positive direct relationship between ROLC and sustainability, and ROLC and sustainable competitiveness, supporting the first and second hypotheses of the structed model. Yet, an unexpected negative path from sustainable competitiveness to sustainability was also observed. This finding suggests that an increase in competitive advantage may not necessarily align with improved sustainability outcomes, making the relationship in the third hypothesis insufficient. This relationship could indicate that organizations pursuing short-term competitive advantages may inadvertently compromise certain aspects of sustainability, which raises the possibility that the measurement of competitiveness in this context might prioritize immediate gains over long-term sustainability goals [76]. The implications of this finding warrant further investigation, particularly to understand how organizations balance competitive strategies with sustainable practices.

5.4. Employee Resilience

The Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes) highlighted significant differences based on age, salary range, sector, and total job experience. Younger employees (under 30 years) exhibited higher resilience scores compared to those over 40 years of age (p-value = 0.001), which may reflect greater adaptability and flexibility among younger workers [79,80]. The higher resilience observed among younger employees may be explained through adaptive leadership theories [81], which suggest that younger individuals may be more flexible and open to change due to their developmental stage and life experiences. Additionally, life course theories posit that individuals in different age cohorts possess varying levels of adaptability, shaped by their personal and professional experiences. Furthermore, employees in lower salary brackets reported higher resilience (mean = 40.76) compared to those in higher salary ranges (mean = 35.52), suggesting that financial pressures might impact perceived resilience [81,82,83]. In terms of sector, employees in education had the highest resilience scores (mean = 40.50, p-value = 0.039), possibly due to the supportive and nurturing environment of educational institutions. Finally, employees with less than 5 years of experience showed higher resilience (mean = 40.00) compared to those with more than 15 years (mean = 36.48, p-value = 0.016), which could be indicative of the challenges faced by more experienced employees in maintaining resilience over time [84]. The results indicated a significant effect of employee resilience on both ROLC and sustainability, thus supporting the fourth hypothesis.

Moreover, while the study acknowledges the implications of Saudi Vision 2030, it is essential to connect our findings to the specific cultural, social, and economic contexts of Saudi Arabia [71]. The Saudi Vision 2030 initiative emphasizes diversifying the economy and enhancing public sector efficiency, which necessitates organizational change across various sectors [85]. Understanding these unique cultural dynamics, such as the influence of collectivism prevalent in Saudi society, can further elucidate the resilience demonstrated by younger employees [86]. This context may foster stronger social support networks, which are known to enhance resilience in organizational settings. By integrating these theoretical frameworks and contextual factors, our discussion gains greater depth and relevance. The findings of this study not only contribute to the existing literature, but also offer actionable insights for leaders and policymakers in Saudi Arabia as they navigate the complexities of organizational change in alignment with the goals of Saudi Vision 2030.

6. Conclusions

In summary, the study demonstrates that while demographic factors such as age, job position, and sector can significantly influence perceptions of the role of leaders in change, sustainability, and employee resilience, other factors such as gender and salary range show mixed results. These findings underscore the importance of considering demographic variables in organizational assessments and highlight areas for further research to understand the underlying reasons for these differences. Future studies could explore the qualitative aspects of these relationships to gain a deeper understanding of how demographic factors impact organizational outcomes and employee experiences.

This study adds to the literature on the role leaders play in organizational change, specifically regarding the sustainability of organizations after change. First, it examined the relationship between the role of leaders during change and sustainability. Second, it provided a mediation model analyzing the mediating role of sustainable competitiveness in the role of leaders in change and sustainability. Third, it posits that employee resilience moderates the relationship between a leader’s role during change and sustainability. This model is evaluated in the context of the public and private sectors in Saudi Arabia, which have undergone significant organizational change. Such relationships have not been thoroughly discussed in the Saudi context in previous literature.

The findings of this study have showed positive direct relationships between the variables of the study, supporting the first (ROLC–sustainability), second (ROLC–sustainable competitiveness), and fourth (employee resilience moderates the relationship between ROLC and sustainability) hypotheses. These results are similar to those in prior studies that argued that role of leaders during change has a positive effect on sustainability and sustainable competitiveness throughout the process of organizational change [18,26,34,49,87]. The third hypothesis, which depicted the mediation of sustainable competitiveness between ROLC and sustainability, showed insufficiency, resulting in a negative relationship. This result was unexpected and opposes previous studies (e.g., [50]). This variance in the study’s findings could be attributed to the low perception of employee resilience among the participants in the survey.

Furthermore, the findings have important implications for organizational theory and practice, particularly in light of previous research indicating the critical role of leadership in fostering sustainability. By establishing these connections, our research contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how leaders can influence sustainable practices within their organizations. In addition, this research offers a contribution to future scholars by presenting a structural model that explores the relationships between all of the study’s variables.

The implications of these findings extend to managers, HR professionals, and policymakers. It is recommended that leaders actively engage in fostering a culture of sustainability during organizational changes, focusing on the development of sustainable competitive practices. Managers should also consider tailored strategies that address the varying impacts of demographic factors on employee perceptions, thereby enhancing overall organizational effectiveness and resilience. HR professionals are encouraged to implement training programs that strengthen employee resilience, ensuring that staff can adapt positively to change and support sustainability initiatives. Policymakers should take note of these dynamics to create supportive frameworks that promote sustainable practices across sectors.

This research is not without limitations. First, the area of research was confined to several public and private sectors that experienced organizational changes in Saudi Arabia only, limiting the diversification of the results of the proposed conceptual model to one country. Thus, the findings cannot be generalized, giving the opportunity for future researchers to apply this study to a different context with a larger population in order to generalize the findings. Second, the sampling pool contains employees of these sectors only, which may result in respondent bias towards their specific sector and may restrict the generalizability of the results across different organizations and/or sectors. In addition, while we acknowledge the limitations associated with survey analysis, including potential biases and sample size, our methodological choices were guided by a commitment to capturing a diverse range of employee experiences in the context of ongoing organizational change in Saudi Arabia. Future research could apply different methods of collecting data to generate more valid results and avoid bias.