A tool for readiness for organizational change

Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S., Harris, S.G. (2007). Readiness for organizational change: the systematic development of a scale. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232-255.

Description

This article discusses the development and evaluation of an instrument that can be used to gauge readiness for organizational change at an individual level.This tool used a systematic item-development framework as a guide (i.e., item development, questionnaire administration, item reduction, scale evaluation and replication). This tool takes into account models assessing readiness comprised of four factors: content, context, process and individual characteristics.


Readiness for change is a multidimensional construct influenced by beliefs among employees that:

  • they are capable of implementing a proposed change (i.e., change-specific efficacy)
  • the proposed change is appropriate for the organization (i.e., appropriateness)
  • the leaders are committed to the proposed change (i.e., management support)
  • the proposed change is beneficial to organizational members (i.e., personal valence)

Steps for Using Method/Tool

The most influential readiness factors were:

  • efficacy— the belief that the change could be implemented
  • organizational valence— the belief that the change would be organizationally beneficial
  • management support the belief that the organizational leaders were committed to the change
  • personal valence the belief that the change would be personally beneficial

Evaluation

Known scales designed to measure personality and contextual variables were administered along with the readiness factors so that convergent validity, the extent to which new scales share variance with other known scales, could be explored.

Validity

Estimates of internal consistency.
Estimates of internal consistency were computed for each factor. Coefficient alphas were .94 for appropriateness, .87 for management support, .82 for change efficacy and .66 for the personal valence score. Although the internal consistency of the Personal Valence scale did not meet the standard of .70, the standard was relaxed because of the exploratory nature of the scale.

CONVERGENT VALIDITY
Personality factors
The following measures were included:

  • an individual’s locus of control (using the seven-item Internal Mastery Scale developed by Pearlin, Lieberman, Menaghan & Mullan, 1981; α = .77)
  • negative affect (using the 10-item Negative Affect Schedule developed by Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988; α = .86)
  • rebelliousness (using the 11-item scale developed by Hong & Faedda, 1996; α = .85)
  • general attitudes toward change (using the five items developed by Trumbo, 1961; α = .73)


Organizational Culture
The authors measured the following:

  • the perceptions members had of the organization’s communication climate (measured with the four-item scale developed by Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994; α = .73)
  • perceived ability of management (measured with a six-item scale developed by Mayer & Davis, 1999; α = .94)

These results indicated that the readiness factors were correlated with each other (mean r = .46, p < .05). In addition, the correlations between the variables gave some evidence of convergent validity.

PREDICTIVE AND INCREMENTAL VALIDITY
An abbreviated follow-up questionnaire included:

  • the three-item scale of job satisfaction (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins & Klesh, 1983; α = .83)
  • the six-item scale of affective commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; α = .86)
  • the three-item scale of turnover intentions (Cammann et al., 1983; α = .88)

Predictive validity
Using regression, the readiness-for-change factors collectively explained 23% (F = 9.24, p < .01), 17% (F = 8.18, p < .01) and 10% (F = 3.59, p < .01) of the variation in the organizational members’ job satisfaction, affective commitment and turnover intentions, respectively.

Incremental validity
To test the incremental predictive validity of the readiness factors, the authors used hierarchical multiple regression. This analysis indicated that the addition of the readiness factors increased the explained variance of job satisfaction (when readiness-for-change factors were entered, ΔR2 = .08, p < .05) and affective commitment (when readiness-for-change factors were entered ΔR2 = .08, p < .05). The readiness-for-change factors did not explain a significant amount of variation in turnover intentions over the demographic characteristics, personality variables and contextual variables (when readiness-for-change factors were entered ΔR2 = .04, p > .05).

Personality and organizational factors were administered to a second sample as well. Consistent with previous findings, the results indicated that the readiness factors were correlated with each other (mean r = .42, p < .05).

These summaries are written by the NCCMT to condense and to provide an overview of the resources listed in the Registry of Methods and Tools and to give suggestions for their use in a public health context. For more information on individual methods and tools included in the review, please consult the authors/developers of the original resources.

We have provided the resources and links as a convenience and for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by McMaster University of any of the products, services or opinions of the external organizations, nor have the external organizations endorsed their resources and links as provided by McMaster University. McMaster University bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external sites.

Have you used this resource? Share your story!