Role and Applicability of the Constructs “Readiness for Change” and “Capacity for Change”

Readiness for change is amongst the major factors influencing the success of change initiatives in organizations. The construct is multifaceted and usually refers to the commitment (of employees) and belief (shared by the group, organization) in their collective capability to implement a specific change initiative. Applying the dynamic capabilities and organizational ambidexterity lens, some researchers suggest a different construct – organizational capacity for change. The capacity for change refers to the successful implementation of multiple, often overlapping change initiatives, and thus allows organizations to simultaneously achieve short-term, operational tasks and long-term, strategic goals. The capacity for change describes the appropriate organizational context, leadership, organizational learning and takes into account previous experience with changes and the extent to which these are considered fair and personally beneficial by employees. Readiness and capacity for change are not always clearly distinguishable and, in some cases, appear as interchangeable terms denoting similar phenomena. This conceptual article explores the two constructs based on a theoretical study of conceptual and empirical studies. The research conclusions support the proposition that the two constructs share similarities but also differences, which justify their distinct roles in deepening our understanding of change in organizations and how to manage and successfully implement it.

Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders

Peter Vaill’s evocative metaphor of “living in permanent whitewater” is very relevant to universities today. Leaders in our institutions (and elsewhere) are navigating unfamiliar territory—and they are doing so without a map. The demands and expectations placed on leaders can be extreme and is testing the abilities of our institutions’ leaders to the extreme. Leaders and leadership paradigms has been disrupted and the old model of fear and control do not work. However, the primary leadership challenge is not simply to develop a new leadership competency model—describing a group of behaviours we expect from our leadership. The deeper challenge is to develop a new mind-set that anchors, informs, and advances these new behaviours. The ability to question your own deeply entrenched assumptions and well-established worldviews, habits and mind-sets will be critical. When unpacking the case for change versus the capacity for change, this chapter surfaced, five kinds of shifts needed to lead in a world characterised by complexity, disruption and uncertainty. I have labelled these shifts as the Awareness shift, the Identity shift, the Mindset shift, the Paradigm shift and lastly the shift from Fear to psychological safety. Are these the only shifts that matter in the current state? I am sure not, we can add many more. But, I believe that these four shifts that demonstrate the complexities of the challenges facing higher education has the potential to reposition and reinvent our leadership for the future.

Organisational change capacity and performance: the moderating effect of coercive pressure

PurposeTo examine three dimensions of organisational change capacity (OCC) which have been proposed sequentially in the following order: OCC for change will affect process capacity for change and develop context capacity for change. Specifically, this study explores the moderating effects of coercive pressure.Design/methodology/approachTo test the proposed hypotheses, this study conducted survey among middle-level leaders of the 11 top universities (autonomous higher education institutions – AHEIs) in Indonesia. This study used a sample of 92 respondents, deans 21 and vice deans 71 of 11 top Indonesian universities. To test data processing using the SmartPLS 3.0 tool.FindingsThe findings indicate that learning capacity for change is the starting point of OCC, and it influences process capacity and context capacity for change. Coercive pressure strengthens the relationship between learning capacity and context capacity for change. Further, context capacity for change determines organisational performance.Originality/valueThis study empirically examines the OCC construction mechanism as follows: learning capacity for change influences process capacity for change and then has an effect on the OCC for change, which ultimately affects organisational performance.

Structural readiness to implement community-wide mass drug administration programs for soil-transmitted helminth elimination: results from a three-country hybrid study

Background Current soil-transmitted helminth (STH) control programs target pre-school and school-age children with mass drug administration (MDA) of deworming medications, reducing morbidity without interrupting ongoing transmission. However, evidence suggests that STH elimination may be possible if MDA is delivered to all community members. Such a change to the STH standard-of-care would require substantial systems redesign. We measured baseline structural readiness to launch community-wide MDA for STH in Benin, India, and Malawi. Methods After field piloting and adaptation, the structural readiness survey included two constructs: Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change and Organizational Capacity for Change. Sub-constructs of organizational readiness include change commitment and change efficacy. Sub-constructs of organizational capacity include flexibility, organizational structure, and demonstrated capacity. Survey items were also separately organized into seven implementation domains. Surveys were administered to policymakers, mid-level managers, and implementers in each country using a five-point Likert scale. Item, sub-construct, construct, and domain-level medians and interquartile ranges were calculated for each stakeholder level within each country. Results Median organizational readiness for change scores were highest in Malawi (5.0 for all stakeholder groups). In India, scores were 5.0, 4.0, and 5.0 while in Benin, scores were 4.0, 3.0, and 4.0 for policymakers, mid-level managers, and implementers, respectively. Median change commitment was equal to or higher than median change efficacy across all countries and stakeholder groups. Median organizational capacity for change was highest in India, with a median of 4.5 for policymakers and mid-level managers and 5.0 for implementers. In Malawi, the median capacity was 4.0 for policymakers and implementers, and 3.5 for mid-level managers. In Benin, the median capacity was 4.0 for policymakers and 3.0 for mid-level managers and implementers. Median sub-construct scores varied by stakeholder and country. Across countries, items reflective of the implementation domain ‘policy environment’ were highest while items reflective of the ‘human resource’ domain were consistently lower. Conclusion Across all countries, stakeholders valued community-wide MDA for STH but had less confidence in their collective ability to effectively implement it. Perceived capacity varied by stakeholder group, highlighting the importance of accounting for multi-level stakeholder perspectives when determining organizational preparedness to launch new public health initiatives. Trial registration NCT03014167

Market orientation and capacity for change in higher education performance in Indonesia

Purpose Changes are inevitable and organisations should develop their organisational capacity for change (OCC) to survive. This paper aims to test the effect of market orientation on OCC (learning, process and context), as well as the impact of OCC on organisational performance. Design/methodology/approach This research used a survey of 314 heads of study programmes in Indonesia’s highest-ranked universities to test the proposed hypotheses. Findings The results of this research demonstrate that OCC is determined by customer orientation and cross-functional coordination (market orientation), while competitor orientation influences the learning dimension of OCC. Moreover, only the context dimension of OCC positively influences organisational performance in addition to serving as a mediator between market orientation (customer orientation and cross-functional coordination) and organisational performance, whereas competitor orientation positively influences organisational performance. Originality/value This paper empirically tested the three dimensions of OCC (learning, process and context) that had previously been discussed only conceptually. Furthermore, the organisation should be market-oriented to possess the capacity for change. Finally, the paper proposes and demonstrates that organisational context (culture) plays a significant role in OCC in developing organisational performance.

Creating a sustainable model for stroke system change

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to develop an infrastructure and leadership capacity for a sustainable approach to collaborative change in a complex health-care system.Design/methodology/approachAn infrastructure for system change and a mechanism to build capacity for change leadership was developed. This involved (1) using a community of a practice model to create a change community, (2) developing an iterative engagement and change process and (3) integrating collaborative change leadership skills and knowledge development within the process. Change leadership was evaluated using Wenger's phases of value creation.FindingsA change community of 62 members across 19 organizations codeveloped a change process that aligns with Cooperrider's 4D Cycle. The change community demonstrated application of change leadership learnings throughout the change process.Originality/valueA tailored approach was required to support sustainable transformational change in the Toronto stroke system. This novel methodology provides a framework for broader application to systems change in other complex systems that support both local and system-wide ownership of the work.

Dynamic managerial capabilities, organisational capacity for change and organisational performance: the moderating effect of attitude towards change in a public service organisation

PurposeThe aim of this study is to explore dynamic managerial capabilities (DMCs) and their effect on public organisational performance. While the previous research has focused on how leadership style impacts on organisational performance, the authors have investigated how the dynamic managerial capabilities of middle managers and their organisational capacity for change as well as their attitude towards the change are linked to organisational performance.Design/methodology/approachThe dataset was gathered during the field research carried out in a large public Indonesian government institution. In total, 313 managers and their direct followers participated in this study. The authors have employed structural equation modelling to test the hypotheses.FindingsThe results of this study demonstrate the role of the dynamic capabilities of the middle managers associated with organisational performance. The results show that dynamic managerial capabilities and organisational performance are mediated by the organisational capacity for change.Practical implicationsMiddle managers should equip and develop their capabilities in order to embrace change in the organisation through the communication between the different staff levels, uniting the vision and mission with the organisational members. Further, the organisation should empower the role of the middle managers by increasing their authority and participation in the policy-making that is part of the change process. In addition, the workplace could implement interventions to optimise the dynamic managerial capabilities held by the middle manager and employees through assessments and mentoring. Finally, particular training programmes could be implemented to boost the employees' skills and flexibility, thereby keeping them agile in the context of the changes in the work environment.Originality/valueThe role of the dynamic managerial capabilities of the middle manager is a prominent factor when facilitating a high level of organisational performance in a public organisation. However, the role of dynamic managerial capabilities does not have a direct effect on organisational performance if the organisation does not have the capacity to change, particularly in the Indonesian context.

Middle manager capabilities and organisational performance: the mediating effect of organisational capacity for change

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the mechanism that transforms middle manager capabilities (MMCs) into organisational performance (OP). This study proposes that organisational capacity for change (OCC) might mediate the relationship between MMCs and OP.Design/methodology/approachThe proposed hypotheses were tested using data derived from a survey distributed to 89 heads of department of 34 subjects from the 11 top universities in Indonesia.FindingsThe findings indicate that MMCs positively influence OCC and OP and that OCC positively influences the OP. Furthermore, the authors found that OCC mediates the positive effect of MMCs on OP.Originality/valueThe authors empirically investigated the hypothesis that MMCs, in the context of higher education, play a crucial role in determining OCC and OP. Furthermore, the capacity of organisations to adapt to the changing environment mediates the capabilities of the middle managers in relation to OP. In addition, the authors empirically investigated OCC in three dimensions (learning, process and context) that were previously only proposed and discussed conceptually.

Towards a Learning Organization

A learning organization is one that is consistently capable of adaptive change in response to signals from its environment. However, knowledge management initiatives to enact learning organizations have not been uniformly successful. This chapter focuses on the role of the psychological environment of the individual in enabling or hampering organizational learning. Six theories drawn from multiple fields are reviewed to identify both opportunities and barriers to fostering change at the level of the individual. These include orientation to learning, motivation to act, and capacity for change. However, the authors argue that organizations ought to be regarded as complex social systems. Change strategies intended to foster a learning organization are more likely to succeed if they embrace the idea that designing change for complex social systems requires a special approach: design thinking. This is characterized by iterative prototyping, experimenting, trialing, and piloting changes to work processes, structures, and tasks.