Utdrag av artikkel:
Change readiness and change capacity

The noble art of organizations to develop the ability to change themselves and adapt

By Hugo Carl Lütcherath

Abstract
Is it possible to talk of an ability to change? And can different organizations have different abilities to change? In this article we will look closer at the subject and see if the subject is a useful tool to describe, predict, facilitate and evaluate change in organizations.

Why do change in organizations so often fail?
Change has always been regarded as risky. There is an element of the unknown, of the uncontrollable, and an element of destruction. To create something new the old has to be destructed or at least deminished. It is no wonder that change raises our fears. On the other hand a lot of companies, both in private and public sector, are engaged in internal change processes. Change seems to be one of the most common topics of the day. All this change activity should perhaps tell us a story of success; that change processes create success. Be that business success or increased productivity. But the picture we get are quite different. Most planned change processes in organizations fail. Clegg and Walsh (2004) states in their article ”Change Management: Time for a change”:

”The evidence from case studies, expert panels, surveys, and economic analyses suggests that the effectiveness of such changes, when considered against their organizational objectives and/or their economic performance, is often disappointing. Rates of failure appear to be high, and rates of success low.”

Buono and Kerber (2010) points to a McKinsey Survey stating:

”Successful organizational change often remains elusive. A global business study by McKinsey underscores this problem, noting that only one-third of organizational change initiatives were viewed as successful by their leaders”.

Jørgensen, Owen and Neus (2008) refers to a IBM study that suggest:

”As a recent IBM white paper study suggests, the "change gap" (i.e., the gap between an organization's expectation of change and its history of successfully managing it) has increased significantly over the past few years.”

In the book The Dance of Change, Peter Senge et al. (1999) states that an organization is not a thing or a machine – it is a living organism. This means that change and growth is an endless interplay between natural growth processes and limiting processes. If you do not take that into concideration and act accordingly, Senge et al. claims that your change initiative and change process will fail.
And finally the Norwegian scientists Hennestand, Revang and Strønen (2009) claims in their book ”Change management and management change”:

”The change processes that fail seems to be more common than their successful ideals.”

These references and many others points to the experience that more than 50%, may be so much as 70%, of all planned organizational change initiatives fail. That is – they are not viewed as successful by the people taking part in them. This observation is more than enough to destroy anyones bravery to explain why. And naturally the explainations are multiple.

There seems to be at least two perspectives when one is regarding the possible causes for failure in change processes in organization. One is the academic view focusing on the scientific problem of trying to explain why we fail. The other is the knowledge, attitudes and values of the people involved; those who work and strive in the organizations. There is quite often a distance between the scientific knowledge and advice, - and the practice in the organizations. As early as 1942 Kurt Lewin´s research had led him to point at several clear and crisp requirements for change. One of them was that those who are involved in the change process should be free to make their own decisions without manipulation or coercion (Burnes 2009). The practice in numerous organizations, private and public alike, was at the time, and even today, not influenced to a large degree by his advice.
For many years organizational scientists have given the advice that all members in the organization that are in any way influenced by the change process should participate in the process. But in many organizations the practice is a top-down driven roll-out change process where only those that need to know are allowed to participate (Clegg and Walsh 2004).
So when we are looking for a plausible explanation to why so many change initiatives in organizations fail, we have to look both at the scientific literature, the popular literature and the practices of real life in organizations.
As early as 1990 Edgar Schein (Schein 1990) stated that the main reason so many organizations failed in their attempts to change was their inability to create readiness for change:

”The reason so many change efforts run into resistance or outright failure is traceable to the organization´s inability to effectively unfreeze and create readiness for change before attempting a change induction”.

Later both Armenakis et al. (1993), Kotter (1996), Luecke (2003), Jones et al. (2005) and many others argued that it is of vital importance for the change success that organizations are change-ready before they are attempting to start any change process. Jones et al. (2005) put it quite bluntly:

”Premature implementation (of change) may not produce intended outcomes simply because employees are not psychologically ready”.

Change readiness
The term change readiness seems to indicate that there have to be some lessons done before one starts the change process. On several levels in the organization - from individual level to organizational level, the organization must be "willing and able". Weiner (2009). Weiner (2009) conceptually define organizational readiness for change as:

"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)".

He emphasizes that it refers to organizational members shared resolve to pursue the courses of action needed in the change implementation. This means that organizational readiness has to do with the members or employees state of mind - their attitudes, their motivation to go through an organizational change process.
A well known study by Armenakis et al.s (1993) argues that organizational change is a continuous process built up of three phases: Readiness for change, adoption and institutionalization. The study more than suggest that lack of change readiness is the main reason why organizations fail when trying to manage planned change processes. They state that:

"Readiness... is reflected in organizational members` beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization´s capacity to successfully make those changes".

Schein (1987) explored Lewin´s three stage model of unfreezing, changing and refreezing refering originally to personal change in patients. He considered unfreezing as a process of creating readiness for change and motivation in individuals in the organization. As already indicated some researchers distinguish between individual change readiness and organizational change readiness (or - readiness for change, or readiness for organizational change).

Backer (1995) explained individual readiness for change this way:
"Individuals readiness for change is involved with people´s attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and their perception of individual and organizational capacity to make those changes. Readiness is a state of mind about the need".

Holt, Armenakis, Feild & Harris (2007) referring to the three stages of implementing successfully (see Armenakis er al. (1993) above). They pointed out that by understanding employee´s readiness to change one would have a guide to leaders of how to manage the change process and implement the changes.

Todnem (2007) found in his research:
"The findings revealed support for Armenakis et al.`s notion of correlation between the level of change readiness and the successful implementation and further management of change".
And -
"In other words, if an organization is not change ready, failure could be perceived as the only predictable outcome of any change initiative".

Both Buchanan & Huczynski (2010), Cummings & Worley (2009) and Beer & Nohira (2000) claims that one of the most essential aspects related to successful change in organizations is the establishment of employee commitment. Employee commitment is described as the attachment of an employee to an organization, group, department, program or project. See for example Herscovitch and Meyer (2002).
As early as 1976 Porter, Crampon and Smith defined organizational commitment as the relative strength of an individual´s identification and involvement in a particular organization.

Anjani and Dhanapal (2012) sums up organizational commitment this way:
"Individuals come to organizations with certain need, skills, expectations and they hope to find a work environment where they can use their abilities and satisfy their need. When an organization can provide these opportunities, the likelihood of increasing commitment is increased. Organizational commitment refers to a wide range of feelings, attitudes, values, practices and implementation of radiant ideas in the interest of the organization to which an employee belongs. It reflects the degree of an employee´s attachment and his/her dedication to the organization and is presently recognized as a multidimensional work attitude".

With this perspective in mind it seems that employee commitment is part of the organizational readiness for change. One must however be aware of that a strong employee commitment probably sets standards for the quality of the leadership and management of the potential organizational change process.

What then is change capacity?
According to Meyer & Stensaker (2011) change capacity is the organizational ability to implement multiple changes so the company ensures profitability in the long term. However Meyer & Stensaker (2011) established some important prerequisites: Change capacity is capabilities to change, the abilities to implement multiple changes, that the company ensures profitability in the long term, that the company has capabilities to maintain daily operations during the change processes, and that it has capabilities to implement subsequent change processes. In other words Meyer & Stensaker try to build change capacity on some real life factors.
One problem is however that public companies may have some troubles in fitting into their definition.

In his book "Building Organizational Capacity for Change" Judge jr. (2011) describe organizational capacity for change as "the overall capability of an organization to either effectively prepare for or respond to an increasingly unpredictable and volatile environmental context".
He claims that this capability is multidimensional and comprises three ingredients: a. Human skill and resources. b. Formal systems and procedures. And c. Organizational culture, values and norms.

Both Meyer & Stensaker (2011) and Judge jr. (2011) seem to claim that change capacity - like change readiness - must be prepared in advance. It cannot be merely a reaction to events. In other words -
organizational change capacity is a capacity that must be built in advance and become a natural part of the organization and thus be ready and able when needed.

Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Werkman & Boonstra (2003) claim that:
"The term change capacity refers to the degree to which aspects of an organisation and aspects of a change process contribute to or hinder change".
The model seems partly to be built upon Lewin´s "Three-step model" of change, Lewin (1947). The findings Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Werkman & Boonstra (2003) present indicate that: "General results suggest that the change capacity of organizations is neither low nor high. This is counterintuitive and opposite to what we know about differences between changing organizations".
And -
"The configurations demonstrate that focusing on multiple aspects of organizations and change processes is important to fully comprehend what hinders and helps organizations change".

Klarner, Probst and Soparnot (2008) stated that there is a lack of studies focusing on organizations in the public sector. They too have to build their change ability. They define organizational change capacity "as an organization´s ability to develop and implement appropriate organizational changes to constantly adapt to its environment". They further state that: "This implies a focus on multiple changes over time, which is contrary to the literature´s predominant view of change as isolated events".

Here they seem to agree fully with Meyer and Stensaker (2011), and they stress the point of Staber and Sydow (2002):
"..., change capacity not only describes a dynamic process of continuous learning and adjustment that enables the organization to cope with unknown future circumstances, but also describes the ability to implement those changes".

Klarner, Probst and Soparnot (2008) used the Klarner et al.`s (2007) conceptual framework for change capacity to analyze the change capacity of the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO underwent a transformation process from 2003 onwards and this change process was evaluated 18 months later. The authors were interested to find out if - and to what extent - the WHO had a capacity for change during the 18 months change process. Klarner et al.`s change capacity framework was used for the analysis. The framework model consists of three dimensions: The change process dimension, the organizational context dimension and importantly - the learning dimension.
The analysis indicates that the WHO -
"managed its change process between 2003 and 2005 by possessing some of the determinants of change capacity´s dimensions, while lacking other important ones. Overall, the WHO had a moderate change capacity".
The findings indicated that the case confirmed the three identified dimensions importance (change process -, organizational context - and learning dimension) and interdependence. The study -
"supports existent studies on change management in public services. It confirms that respecting the cultural, structural and political particularities of public organizations are crucial for successful change management».
And -
"..., these particularities require an incremental and participative approach to change management,…".
And further -
"...it reveals the importance for public service organizations to learn during and from each change process in order to develop the ability to successful change over time.
Overall, the adapted version of Klarner et al.`s (2007) model helps to identify which characteristics of successful change management an organization lacks, while keeping public organizations`particularities and specific requirements in mind».

Buono and Kerber (2010) claims that change capacity is a broader concept than change readiness, and that it requires a much more extensive set of interventions. They state that change capacity implies a focus on multiple, often iterative and overlapping changes over time:

"Change capacity is thus an ongoing capability that reflects 1) a dynamic process of continuous learning and adjustment, enabling the organization to thrive in the midst of ambiguity and uncertainty, and 2) the ability to implement those changes".

And -
"Building this capacity requires interventions focused on organizational members (understanding and accepting different approaches to change; enhancing willingness and ability to change), structure (creating a change supportive infrastructure, ensuring appropriate resources), and culture (building a facilitative culture, ongoing strategizing). In essence, building change capacity involves a systemic approach to tap into people´s natural capacity to change by supporting change and making it a basic part of organizational life".

Buono and Kerber (2005) distinguish between three basic approaches to implementing organizational change: Directed change, planned change and guided change.

Directed change
is driven from the top of the organization and relies on authority, persuasion and compliance. Directed change is a quick, decisive way to introduce change.
Planned change
may arise from any level of the organization but is sponsored by the top. Instead of creating and announcing a change, planned change provides a "roadmap". It attempts to create the conditions for key stakeholders to become more involved in both the form and the implementation of the change.
Guided change
is a very different approach. It is an emergent process that can start at any location within the organization. It is based on the commitment and contribution of organizational members to the organization´s purpose. Each of these three change management approaches has advantages and disadvantages. Developing true change capacity requires the ability to choose among them as dictated by the situation.
May be an article by Smith and Torppa (2010) sums it up:

"Findings indicate that personnel from all levels of the organization who participated in the planning process were more receptive and less pessimistic about the plan and more motivated to make the plan a success. These findings suggest participation may help personnel cope with current changes as well as build capacity for future changes".

Are the concepts of readiness and capacity useful?

It seems that both concepts are used extensively in research and literature regarding change management. Even though there is obviously more need for research into both concepts. With some exceptions change readiness is regarded as the state of mind of the employees, members, participants in an organization. It is about their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, feelings and motivation for the change process. It is a state of mind that takes time to build and that have to be in place if the change process is to succeed.
Change capacity is a broader concept than readiness. It includes both knowledge of the organization´s total situation, the degree of change readiness, the flexibility of leaders and managers and structures and systems and routines, the quality of the culture, the values that are practiced not preached, the dominating management style, the strategy for change and the knowledge and experience both leaders, managers and employees have regarding change processes in the organization.
Change capacity - like change readiness - takes time to build, and must be of some quality if the change process is to have any chance of success at all. It is however very difficult - even impossible - to specify exactly the quality needed. As much else in life it depends on the situation. Therefore change capacity, including the different models, must be utilized far more as a check list tool than a facit. For most organizations it seems that there is a lot to gain from starting to build change capacity the sooner the better.

Referanser til faglitteratur er ikke medtatt i dette utdraget