Abstract

BackgroundChange management experts have emphasized the importance of establishing organizational readiness for change and recommended various strategies for creating it. Although the advice seems reasonable, the scientific basis for it is limited. Unlike individual readiness for change, organizational readiness for change has not been subject to extensive theoretical development or empirical study. In this article, I conceptually define organizational readiness for change and develop a theory of its determinants and outcomes. I focus on the organizational level of analysis because many promising approaches to improving healthcare delivery entail collective behavior change in the form of systems redesign--that is, multiple, simultaneous changes in staffing, work flow, decision making, communication, and reward systems.DiscussionOrganizational readiness for change is a multi-level, multi-faceted construct. As an organization-level construct, readiness for change refers to organizational members' shared resolve to implement a change (change commitment) and shared belief in their collective capability to do so (change efficacy). Organizational readiness for change varies as a function of how much organizational members value the change and how favorably they appraise three key determinants of implementation capability: task demands, resource availability, and situational factors. When organizational readiness for change is high, organizational members are more likely to initiate change, exert greater effort, exhibit greater persistence, and display more cooperative behavior. The result is more effective implementation.SummaryThe theory described in this article treats organizational readiness as a shared psychological state in which organizational members feel committed to implementing an organizational change and confident in their collective abilities to do so. This way of thinking about organizational readiness is best suited for examining organizational changes where collective behavior change is necessary in order to effectively implement the change and, in some instances, for the change to produce anticipated benefits. Testing the theory would require further measurement development and careful sampling decisions. The theory offers a means of reconciling the structural and psychological views of organizational readiness found in the literature. Further, the theory suggests the possibility that the strategies that change management experts recommend are equifinal. That is, there is no 'one best way' to increase organizational readiness for change.

Highlights

  • Change management experts have emphasized the importance of establishing organizational readiness for change and recommended various strategies for creating it

  • Summary: The theory described in this article treats organizational readiness as a shared psychological state in which organizational members feel committed to implementing an organizational change and confident in their collective abilities to do so

  • This way of thinking about organizational readiness is best suited for examining organizational changes where collective behavior change is necessary in order to effectively implement the change and, in some instances, for the change to produce anticipated benefits

Read more

Summary

Discussion

What is organizational readiness for change? Organizational readiness for change is a multi-level construct. Change efficacy Drawing on social cognitive theory, and the work of Gist and Mitchell [47], I propose that change efficacy is a function of organizational members' cognitive appraisal of three determinants of implementation capability: task demands, resource availability, and situational factors. Research by Herscovitch and Meyer [22] supports this contention They found that organizational members whose commitment to change was based on (i.e., determined by) 'want to' motives rather than 'need to' motives or 'ought to' motives exhibited more cooperative behavior (e.g., volunteering for problem-solving teams), and championing behavior (e.g., promoting the value of the change to others). A pool of items could perhaps be developed that researchers could use in order to construct organizational readiness for change instruments that fit specific change contexts, yet share at least some content with other tailored instruments

Background
Summary
Hardison C
Kotter JP: Leading change Boston
25. Maddux JE
34. Snyder-Halpern R
40. Sathe V
42. Vroom VH
56. Nunnally JC
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call