In change management, we are frequently called upon to design interventions that prepare the organization for an impending change, what is referred to as change readiness. But what exactly does change readiness mean?
Several popular change frameworks offer different takes on the readiness construct. Prosci defines change readiness as “the level to which an organization is prepared, willing, and able to implement change.” LaMarsh Global defines a change-ready culture as “an organizational environment that embraces and actively prepares for change…characterized by a set of values, behaviors, and norms that enable individuals and teams to navigate transitions with agility, resilience, and a proactive mindset.” And Implementation Management Associates (IMA) defines readiness in its Accelerated Implementation Methodology (AIM) as a function of targets’ information about the need for change, motivation to make the change, skills and knowledge required to do things differently, and confidence to change based on practice and feedback.
The most commonly cited discussion of change readiness, however, was provided by Armenakis et al. (1993), who defined this construct as an individual’s “beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes”. While a range of other definitions has been developed, it is clear that subsequent definitions of change readiness are largely derived from Armenakis et al.’s original work. Weiner (2009) extended this definition empirically to the organization as a whole, stating that “organizational readiness for change refers to organizational members’ change commitment and self-efficacy to implement organizational change.”
Of the three popular frameworks described, IMA seems to be best aligned with the research-based definition of the readiness construct. It also offers the most fully developed approach currently available.
IMA posits that readiness is the antidote to resistance. As they suggest, “You can either invest in readiness now, or spend your resources managing resistance later. There is no other alternative, and there isn’t a “no payment” option.” They describe readiness as existing on a continuum between full readiness to full resistance, with the level of resistance correlating with the degree of disruption caused by the change. As full implementation can consume a “ferocious” amount of resources, IMA suggest that resources be allocated to developing readiness early in the change process – and the earlier the better.
Consistent with more @Lean Change approaches, IMA cautions that regardless of the level of planning undertaken early on, the interventions that have the most impact on change readiness will those that are unplanned. In other words, they urge change agents to take action right now based on what is happening right now, in the moment.
Another key principle outlined by IMA is that “readiness is based on the perceptions of the targets [of the change], not on the perceptions of Sponsors or Change Agents!” They also caution that you can’t communicate your way out of resistance any more than you can communicate your way to readiness. Not only will you need different ways of surfacing issues leading to resistance, you will need to surface and resurface these issues on an ongoing basis.
IMA provides a complete inventory of tips and tactics for increasing readiness and eliminating resistance here: https://www.imaworldwide.com/ebook-10-tips-for-building-readiness-for-change
In my next article, I will explore alternative ways of assessing readiness.