The change readiness model

Armenakis, Stanley & Feild (1999) define readiness as a cognitive state comprising beliefs, attitudes and intentions toward a change effort and they suggest proactively creating readiness for change. This definition of readiness focussing on beliefs and intentions in my opinion very well fits the aim of my research to explore readiness of Stadtwerke Bielefeld for organisational change through a rich analysis of situational factors regarding attitudes and opinions.

37 / 225

The readiness model of Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder (1993) suggests the importance of building readiness according to the level of readiness assessed and the context of the organisation. The primary mechanism for creating readiness for change is the change message, which should incorporate generally the need for change (discrepancy between the actual state of the organisation and the desired end-state) and the individual and collective efficacy for change. The work on creating readiness (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993) complemented previous contributions regarding resistance to change providing a case example. In later research, Armenakis and Fredenberger (1997) researched the views and experiences of 450 practising turnaround change agents, employing a questionnaire derived from change literature and publications on corporate turnarounds. The findings contributed to the understanding of time periods for improvement by changes, resistance to change and readiness practices implemented. In regards to my research, I assume that the findings are not unconditionally applicable, because the focus on turnaround change agents implies that the pressure for change is existence-threatening to the company as external professionals are brought in help with the turnaround. Therefore the findings might not be completely accurate for a situation where urgency is increasing, but not yet existence-threatening (see 1.3, p. 10f.).

An extension of the message components was developed in later research by Armenakis, Harris & Feild (1999) focussing on how to make change permanent. This model to make change permanent was developed from theory and research on organisational change and from successful practices implemented in many worldwide organisations. However, the model was built on a broad theoretical basis, but does not – as a general model - take specific situational factors into account. For the aim of the research to explore the readiness of Stadtwerke Bielefeld, the specific factors regarding opinions, beliefs and situational aspects need to be intertwined for the practical application of the model.

In the research of Armenakis et al. (1999), the message components needed to build readiness are extended to five; discrepancy and efficacy are complemented by appropriateness, principal support and personal valence. The five elements should answer key questions about the change effort:

38 / 225

• Discrepancy should convince organisation members that the change is really

necessary.

• Appropriateness should demonstrate that the specific change being

introduced is an appropriate reaction to the discrepancy.

• Efficacy reassures that the change can be successfully implemented.

• Principal support aims to convince members of the organisation that the

leaders are committed to successful implementation and institutionalisation of the change.

• Personal valance explains the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of the change to

organisation members.

The model of Armenakis et al. (1999) is depicted in the following figure:

Figure 5: Change readiness model; illustration according to Armenakis et al. (1999)

With a change message comprised of above components, change commitment should be built. Armenakis et al. (1999) conceptualise the undertaking of any change intervention in general and change readiness intervention more specifically as sending a message to organisational members, thus the change message is the core element for readiness creation and later adoption of change. Anyone involved in initiating, implementing, and supporting a change is considered as a change agent, starting with the head of the organisation and then people in all leadership positions supporting change. Armenakis et al. (1999) suggest that change initiatives

39 / 225

may usefully be considered as sending a message to the organisation, so that the most important attribute of change agents is credibility. This is an aspect that needs to be considered for my research in tailoring a change attempt (see 4.2.1; p. 98; 4.4.1; p. 113 and 1.1.1; p. 158).

In later research, Holt, Armenakis, Feild & Harris (2007) found that readiness for change is a multi-dimensional construct with the main influence factors of discrepancy, efficacy, organisational valence (beneficial and appropriate for the company), management support and personal valence. With these core items, a readiness measure was developed and the necessity of these items in a change message was confirmed. Also the instrument was suggested to evaluate an implemented change or use it for periodic assessment to decide whatever actions may be needed to make a change successful. However, refinements of the scales used have been suggested. Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts and Walker (2007) developed a 24-item assessment tool for readiness assessment that may be used at any stage of the change process. The basis for this assessment tool is also the change message as the core element for readiness creation and thus successful change implementation. With change readiness assessment, a change agent can determine the extent to which ownership for an organisational change exists. Further, unfavourable dimensions may be used to develop modifications of the organisational change content or process. With the model of Armenakis and colleagues (2007, 1999, 1993) as a basis, an assessment of readiness for change may be undertaken. As discussed in this paragraph, the model may be tailored and extended to include specific characteristics into the assessment, which I indeed considered necessary in regard to my research aim.

This model highlights the change message as its core element, with a communicational focus. Given that focus, every action or lack of action of the change agent(s) is interpreted as reinforcing or contradicting the change message. Therefore the central aspect of the model is not one single change message, but the behaviours of managers and opinion leaders, who function as change agents, as a whole needing to be consistent with the change message. Even though a 24-item assessment tool is suggested by Armenakis et al. (2007), further refinement,

40 / 225

adjustment to specific circumstances of the company and testing is proposed later in my thesis (see 3.5.2).