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

Abstract

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.