11 research outputs found
A theory of organizational readiness for change
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Change 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.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Organizational 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.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>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. 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.</p
Groundâpenetrating radar, electromagnetic induction, terrain, and vegetation observations coupled with machine learning to map permafrost distribution at Twelvemile Lake, Alaska
Recommended from our members
How do multilateral institutions influence individual perceptions of international affairs? Evidence from Europe and Asia
To date there has been no systematic study of the relationship between individualsâ opinions of different institutions and their perceptions of world affairs. This article tries to fill this gap by using a large cross-country data set comprising nine EU members and seven Asian nations and instrumental variable bivariate probit regression analysis. Controlling for a host of factors, the article shows that individualsâ confidence in multilateral institutions affects their perceptions of whether or not their country is being treated fairly in international affairs. This finding expands upon both theoretical work on multilateral institutions that has focused on state actorsâ rationale for engaging in multilateral cooperation and empirical work that has treated confidence in multilateral institutions as a dependent variable. The article also shows that individualsâ confidence in different international organizations has undifferentiated effects on their perceptions of whether or not their country is being treated fairly in international affairs, though individuals more knowledgeable about international affairs exhibit slightly different attitudes. Finally, the article demonstrates significant differences in opinion across Europe and Asia