Change Readiness: A Multilevel Review
Abstract
The authors conducted a theoretical review of the change readiness literature and identified two major limitations with this work. First, while there is substantial agreement about the key cognitions that underlie change readiness, researchers have not examined the affective element of this attitude. Second, researchers have not adopted a multilevel perspective when considering change readiness. The authors address these limitations and argue that it is important to incorporate affect into definitions of the change readiness construct and also when measuring this construct. They then develop a multilevel framework that identifies the antecedents and consequences of individual, work group, and organizational change readiness. Next, the authors outline the theoretical processes that lead to the development of individual and collective change readiness. They then review theoretical and empirical evidence to identify the antecedents of change readiness at the three levels of analysis. Finally, the authors identify a number of suggestions to guide future research seeking to adopt a multilevel approach to change readiness.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many efforts to implement evidence-based innovations fail, even with highly developed plans for execution.
“Far too many efforts to implement evidence-based innovations (EBIs) fail [1, 2], even with highly developed plans for execution [3].”
From The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback (2022) · cites this paper as [2]
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026 · see citing works
Explaining Development and Change in Organizations
van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329 · Cited by 3,762 · see citing works
The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior
Barsade, S. G. (2002) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094912 · Cited by 3,361 · see citing works
A theory of organizational readiness for change
Weiner, B. J. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67 · Cited by 2,268 · see citing works
rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306 · Cited by 2,221 · see citing works
Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/ame.1997.9707100659 · Cited by 722 · see citing works
The Collective Construction of Work Group Moods
Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2000) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667070 · Cited by 678 · see citing works
Cynicism about Organizational Change: Measurement, Antecedents, and Correlates
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/1059601100252003 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback
Damschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Widerquist, M. A. O., & Lowery, J. (2022) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0 · Cited by 4,452 · see citing works
Clarity out of chaos: Use of theory in implementation research
Damschroder, L. J. (2020) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.036 · Cited by 422 · see citing works
The determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study
Errida, A., & Lotfi, B. (2021) · International Journal of Engineering Business Management · doi:10.1177/18479790211016273 · Cited by 399 · see citing works
Organizational change: insights from Buddhism and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy(ACT)
Goltz, S. M. (2018) · Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion · doi:10.1080/14766086.2018.1513857 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Auburn University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-09-05
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 110-135
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2113869765
- Cited by
- 679
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 17
- FWCI
- 44.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Management (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Change and Leadership
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Management and Change
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Keywords
- readiness to change, affective attitudes, multilevel analysis, organizational change readiness, construct measurement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
