**2. Methodology**

This article aims to identify the differences and complementarities between two constructs–readiness for change and organizational capacity for change. While readiness for change is well explored and defined in extant literature, organizational capacity for change is a newer construct often confused with the latter. There is less agreement on the nature and role of organizational capacity for change. Thus, this article seeks to answer two research questions:

RQ1: How do readiness and organizational capacity for change differ?

RQ2: What is the relationship between readiness and organizational capacity for change?

To explore the first question, theoretical assumptions, dimensions and antecedents of the two constructs are reviewed. A typology of organizational change is used to investigate the second research question. Readiness and capacity for change applicability in selected types of change is discussed.

#### **3. Theoretical Lens**

Readiness for change is rooted in the organizational development and humanistic traditions. It could be tracked to the classical experiment of Coch and French (1948) which demonstrates the value of participation in change efforts in removing group resistance to changes (Armenakis et al. 1993; Weiner 2009). Readiness for change follows Kurt Lewin's three-stage change model (Lewin 1947). It addresses mainly the requirements of the first stage "unfreeze"–motivating the organization members, demonstrating the discrepancy between the current and desired state, creating an appealing vision of the future, and boosting the confidence that it can be achieved (Weiner 2009). The members of the organization need to first believe that a specific change initiative will be beneficial and achievable. Irrespective of what the reasons behind change are, it requires new behaviors, new ways of doing things and thus depends on the individuals' willingness to adopt them. Change might result in a new strategy, new policies and procedures, new job descriptions or technologies introduced. All of these would impact the way people work, and success would entail their engagement and shared belief they can–and want to–achieve the desired future. The change initiative should provide a clear cause-effect to convince individuals to embrace the goal and follow the steps to its achievement.

The organizational development traditions suggest that the individual is inherently good and having a substantial capacity for self-determination, creativity, and psychological growth (Cummings and Cummings 2014). Change in the organization would succeed through cooperation and alignment of the interests of the individual and the organization. Assessing the level of readiness gives the opportunity to understand these interests, explain, provide information, support, align, and empower individuals. Taking the process view on readiness would entail doing this assessment not only prior, but also during the

implementation (Stevens 2013) and adjusting when necessary. Although typically assessed at the individual level (Peus et al. 2009; Rafferty et al. 2013), there are calls to differentiate and integrate the implications on the individual, group, and organization level (Vakola 2013; Wang et al. 2020).

Many researchers conceptualize the capabilities that enable organizations to implement changes through the dynamic capabilities framework (Judge and Elenkov 2005; Oxtoby et al. 2002; Soparnot 2011; Klarner et al. 2008) and organizational ambidexterity (Meyer and Stensaker 2006; Judge and Blocker 2008). This approach turns the focus to the organizational competencies and abilities rather than the individuals' beliefs and attitudes.

The dynamic capabilities are defined as "*the firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments*" (Teece et al. 1997, p. 516) but also to shape the environment (Teece 2007). They refer to specific, identifiable (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000) and entrepreneurial (Teece et al. 1997) processes. Importantly, dynamic capabilities do not produce results but enable the (re-)organization and utilization of resources to produce end results. They relate to change in organizations unlike the ordinary, operational capabilities (Winter 2003). From the dynamic capabilities lens, capacity for change is described as general for all other dynamic capabilities (Oxtoby et al. 2002; Andreeva and Ritala 2016). It allows the organization to adapt its existing capabilities to new threats and opportunities as well as to create new opportunities (Judge and Elenkov 2005), to initiate and successfully achieve changes of different types, sizes, and forms on an ongoing basis (Heckmann et al. 2016).

The organizational ambidexterity seeks to explain how organizations balance two largely conflicting sets of goals, respectively activities–exploration and exploitation (O'Reilly et al. 2013). Recent studies demonstrate that this contradiction could be bridged and does not require to necessarily separate the two groups of activities in time or in space (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004; Luger et al. 2018; Papachroni et al. 2015). From the organizational ambidexterity lens, capacity for change is defined as "*the allocation and development of change and operational capabilities that sustain long term performance*" (Meyer and Stensaker 2006, p. 220).

The review of applicable theoretical lens is summarized in Table 1.


**Table 1.** Theoretical Lens.
