Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti

Discussion
Case Center demonstrated low readiness, case Bureau moderately high
readiness and case Chain a high level of readiness for change program
implementation. This perception was consistent with the fact that Center’s
change program was terminated prematurely, whereas Bureau’s and
Chain’s change programs were able to proceed to the implementation
phase.
The findings of the current study contribute to the ongoing discussion on
the concept of readiness for change in several ways. Whereas a lot of the
earlier research has focused on readiness for change as an individual level
psychological state, measured by the employee attitudes and beliefs (e.g.
Holt et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2005; Neves, 2009) or as the organization’s
general capacity for implementing any change (e.g. Judge & Douglas, 2009;
Klarner et al., 2008), the current study demonstrates what organizationlevel
readiness for change entails in the context of a particular, significant
change effort. The findings suggest that this organization-level readiness
consists of the organizational members’ shared intent for change, the
committed resources for guiding and implementing the change effort, and
the existence of a legitimate and authorized temporary organization that is
dedicated to delivering the change.
Weiner and his colleagues (2008) conducted an extensive literature
review on readiness for change and gave several suggestions for further
research on the concept. The present findings are consistent with most of
these suggestions. Firstly, Weiner et al. suggested that readiness for change
should include both willingness and ability to implement a change effort.
The conception of readiness developed in the current study grasps both
“technical” abilities and “social” abilities that are required for successful
change implementation. The technical (and structural) abilities include the
availability of sufficient plans, goals, methods, structures, labor, skills, time,
and formal decisions, whereas the social abilities refer to the required
commitment, shared understanding, momentum, support, and sense of
urgency. Also political aspects are involved, as the forthcoming change, as
well as the program as a vehicle to deliver it, needs to appear desirable and
legitimate. These observations lend support to the change management
authors who emphasize that the “instrumental” or “technical” management
of change must be accompanied by change leadership to cope with the
human and political side of change (Gill, 2003; Nadler & Tushman, 1990).
Further consistent with the suggestions by Weiner et al. (2008), the
current study provides an example of assessing readiness for change as the
preparedness to actually implement a particular change effort. Weiner et al.
suggested that the most appropriate point of time to measure readiness for
change is after the decision to adopt the change has been made, but before
186