Measuring change readiness: How to successfully quantify readiness for change

The purpose of this thesis is to clarify central aspects of change readiness, focusing on how to successfully quantify this attitude. This was done by investigating three hypotheses: quantitative versus qualitative method; relationship between individual and organizational change readiness and relationship between positive and negative change readiness. Research on change readiness is hindered by the absence of a reliable and valid measure on both individual and organizational level. Hence, the Organizational Climate Measurement (OCM) survey was used in this thesis to measure change readiness. The Open system quadrant in the Competing Values Framework (CVF) was operationalized as positive change readiness while Internal process quadrant was operationalized as negative change readiness. In addition to the survey, qualitative interviews were used on the same sample. The results indicate that the interviews and surveys detected different amounts of change readiness. It is therefore not indifferent which method is chosen to examine change readiness. The relationship between individual and organizational change readiness were not surprisingly found to be different from each other. It is therefore important to separately measure change readiness at both levels. Results also indicate that change readiness at an individual level can be both positive and negative at the same time. It is therefore important to measure both positive and negative change readiness, not just overall change readiness. Finally, a number of suggestions for future research are identified, focusing on the conceptual and methodological issues that need to be addressed. Keywords: change readiness, multilevel framework, Competing Value Framework, positive change readiness, negative change readiness, mixed-method MEASURING CHANGE READINESS Table of contents Change Readiness . 1 Measuring Change Readiness . 5 OCM: Organizational Climate Measure . 7 Measuring Change Readiness using OCM . 10 The Present Study . 11 Method . 13 Qualitative Interview Data . 13 Quantitative Survey Data . 16 Combined Data . 17 Ethical considerations . 18 Results . 18 Descriptive Statistics . 18 Inferential Statistics . 22 Discussion . 23 Implications for Theory and Practice . 25 Limitations . 31 Directions for Further Research . 32 Conclusion . 33 References . 35 Appendix A – Letter of information . 41 Appendix B Organizational Climate Measure (OCM), Norwegian version . 43 MEASURING CHANGE READINESS 1 The accelerating rate of change, driven by science and new technologies, has profound effects on the world economies, social structures and cultures. The rapid speed at which new innovations and faster communications are implemented, leads to faster changing environmental conditions. This results in an increasing pressure on organizations to adapt and successful changes are necessary for survival, (Holt & Vardaman, 2013). However, successful organizational change efforts have proven difficult and many studies report a high failure rate of 70% or more (e.g. Brodbeck, 2002; Burnes & Jackson, 2011; Burns, 2005). Since change is unavoidable and there is a high probability of failure, extensive research on organizational change has been undertaken. Not surprisingly, motivation for change is a key factor for a successful change process and in particular, the importance of readiness for organizational change is crucial (Rafferty & Simons, 2006). Change initiatives are both time consuming and costly. It is therefore important to resolve how change is successfully adapted and sustained. In order to increase the probability of a profitable outcome, Rafferty, Jimmieson, and Armenakis (2013) argue that it is necessary to consider and measure change readiness prior to large-scale change implementation. This is supported by Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) who argue that change readiness should be assessed in order to identify gaps in employees’ change readiness, and thereby reducing resistance to change and other obstacles to successful conversion. However, there is a lack of research on reliable and valid measurements of change readiness. The idea of change readiness appears to be a fairly intuitive and appealing construct, namely that individuals are more likely to participate in and support change that they are ready for. However change readiness is also a complex concept, appearing to have multiple dimensions and operating at different organizational levels. Despite the fact that change readiness is identified as a key element in successful organizational change (Burke, Clark, & Koopman, 1984), few studies have been conducted on the multifaceted nature of change readiness (Stevens, 2013; Szabla, 2007). Based on this, the purpose of this thesis is to clarify central aspects of change readiness, focusing on how to successfully quantify readiness for change. Change Readiness A key objective in the field of organizational change is the identification of endorsing or facilitating factors (e.g. Lewin, 1952; Rafferty & Simons, 2006). Early theorist such as Kurt Lewin modeled change as a three-stage process, consisting of MEASURING CHANGE READINESS 2 the stages unfreezing, changing, and refreezing (Lewin, 1947). The approach to organizational change developed over the years, evolving from planned approach in the 1950s to 1980s originated by Lewin, to emergent approach, surfacing in the early 1980s (Burns, 2005). Today the concept of organizational change is regarded more complex (Burnes & Jackson, 2011) with an increasing focus on the drivers of successful change (Rafferty & Simons, 2006). A number of researchers identify change readiness as a prevalent factor involved in employees’ initial support for change initiatives (e.g. Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007a). Armenakis et al. (1993) identify readiness for organizational change as being similar to Lewin ́s concept of unfreezing, and emphasize the importance of creating readiness as a precursor to organizational change. Armenakis et al. (1993) also propose the most accepted definition of change readiness and define change readiness as “beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes” (p. 681). Armenakis et al. (1993) identified two beliefs as key components of change readiness: the belief that change is needed and the belief that the individual and the organization have the capacity to undertake change. This is supported by Holt and Vardaman (2013) who argue that change readiness includes individual factors that reflect the extent to which individuals hold key beliefs regarding the change, and recognize that a problem needs to be addressed. Vakola (2013) takes this further and argues that individuals must be willing to support the change and perceives their work group or social environment as supportive of the change initiative. Even though the definition by Armenakis et al. (1993) is the most used in change readiness literature, there is a discrepancy in the literature on how it ought to be defined and conceptualized (Stevens, 2013). The concept of change readiness has been understood throughout research in different ways, conceptualized as an attitude (e.g. Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rafferty et al., 2013; Rafferty & Simons, 2006), multifaceted concept (e.g. Bouckenooghe, Devos, & Van den Broeck, 2009; Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007b; Holt & Vardaman, 2013), a stage of preparedness for change (e.g. Ingersoll, Kirsch, Merk, & Lightfoot, 2000) a commitment to change (e.g. Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold, 2006), or a process (e.g. Stevens, 2013) to mention some. As a consequence, the literature on the readiness for change lacks conceptual clarity, which creates confusion about the concept of change readiness (Vakola, 2014). MEASURING CHANGE READINESS 3 There is a strong overlap between the definition of an attitude and the content of change readiness (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Rafferty et al. (2013) goes even further and argue that change readiness is either a positi