*5.1. Change as Planned vs. Emergent*

Planned change builds on the idea that an organization may deliberately and rationally solve problems, improve its functioning, and address environmental challenges (Maes and Hootegem 2011). It is typically associated with a specific initiative and follows a general approach of diagnosis, design of action plan, implementation, and assessment of its achievement. According to Holt et al. (2007, p. 235), readiness "*reflects the extent to which an individual or individuals are cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter the status quo*". That is, a clear plan, direction of action can be supported by readiness for change. Readiness for change, conceived as "*the cognitive precursor to the behavior of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort*" (Armenakis et al. 1993, p. 683) requires clarity on the elements of the change effort envisaged. According to Wang et al. (2020), readiness connotes a state of being both psychological and behaviorally prepared to take action (i.e., willing and able) in view of the proposed change. The proposed change can be described by its content; it is deliberate and planned. When a planned initiative is defined by its goal, scope, and consequences, assessing readiness for change can help develop or adjust the action plan. Recent empirical studies assess readiness levels in the context of planned change, such as process improvements and innovation in the context of a project-based industry (Akunyumu et al. 2021), knowledge acquisition in professional services industry (Rusly et al. 2015), innovative projects in clusters (Jamai et al. 2022).

Emergent change takes a different stance as to how change is initiated. Its conceptualization builds on the notion that change may be emergent and unintended, not planned a priori, based on local improvisations which can then be generalized (Orlikowski 1996). It is associated with the opportunity to exploit existing tacit knowledge in the organization (Maes and Hootegem 2011) which might otherwise not be tapped in by senior management when designing a planned change initiative. Maes and Hootegem (2011) highlight some of the constraints of emergent change, such as it is diffused (not focused), and better suited to implementation in operations, plants, and stores (than to strategy, firm-level, or corporate change). Thus, the nature of emergent change could hardly accommodate assessment of readiness level. Exploiting the "tacit knowledge in the organization" relates ordinary capabilities, which can be modified and operated by dynamic capabilities. However, organizational change capacity might be beneficial through the appropriate leadership, culture, and an organizational infrastructure enabling organizational change. OCC refers to the overall openness and tolerance to change (McGuiness et al. 2002) and to the extent organizational aspects support or hamper change in general (Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al. 2003).

#### *5.2. Change as Adaptation vs. Transformation*

There are two types of change according to its degree and impact on the organization (Maes and Hootegem 2011). Adaptation is less intensive, results in readjustment of the organization, while transformation is characterized as radical, revolutionary.

Readiness for change could be built within the context faced by the organization (Armenakis et al. 1993) and refers to the cognitive and affective elements of this attitude (Rafferty et al. 2013). It can be particularly helpful in ensuring the acceptance and adoption of a change initiative (Armenakis et al. 1993) through good translation of new strategic ideas into working practices or routines (Øygarden and Mikkelsen 2020). Transformations also described as a shift of the paradigm would involve having or creating the proper attitude to the change required. Assessing and building readiness will thus support transformational change initiatives. Hameed et al. (2017) discuss readiness in public sector R&D organizations undergoing major internal restructuring and expecting additional procedural changes. The shift of paradigm to innovation is the context in which readiness is explored empirically in the context of shifting paradigm to innovate (Akunyumu et al. 2021), to transform educational systems (Wang et al. 2020).

Change capacity is generally defined through the specific dynamic capabilities in the organization that enable it to continually reconfigure and adapt its operational capabilities and create new ones (Heckmann et al. 2016). Thus, it does not relate to attitudes, but provides the capabilities that can help implement different adaptations and transformations. Organizations that possess such a capacity are capable of change as and when necessary (Andreeva and Ritala 2016). Change capacity enables organizations to implement

large-scale changes without compromising daily operations (Meyer and Stensaker 2006). Some empirical evidence has been reported on the applicability of OCC in transformational changes (Spaulding et al. 2016; Zhao and Goodman 2018) as well as adaptations (Arnulf 2012).

#### *5.3. Change as Discontinuous vs. Continuous*

The dimension of frequency distinguishes the number of times a change is happening (Maes and Hootegem 2011). Continuous change at the micro level is associated with ongoing, smaller-scope adaptations or adjustments which might or might not result in large-scope transformation. This could also refer to multiple changes, which might or might not be interlinked.

Conceptualizing readiness as a recursive and multidimensional process (Stevens 2013) may relate to continuous change and multiple changes (Rafferty and Simons 2006). However, it is important to keep the focus on the meaning of readiness as a "state of preparedness for future action" (Weiner et al. 2020). That is, "ready for" a specific change, action. A multiple changes' view poses questions such as how to engage and motivate the organization for each additional change (Schwarz and Stensaker 2014). A more feasible approach would come from capacity for change; some authors go even further to link change capacity primarily to continuous change (Andreeva and Ritala 2016).

Seeing change as a constant process would require organizations to build their change capacity to be able to navigate it successfully. It allows change implementation without compromising subsequent change processes (Meyer and Stensaker 2006) and doing so constantly (Klarner et al. 2007) in a cascading series of inter-related change initiatives (McGuiness and Morgan 2005) or multiple changes (Meyer and Stensaker 2006). Change capacity seen as processes, routines, leadership and attitudes (Judge et al. 2009) has a role in support of both discontinuous and continuous change. Available empirical evidence supports such a claim–some studies describe OCC in the context of a discontinuous event, while others view it as a generic dynamic capability serving multiple and continuous changes (Supriharyanti and Sukoco 2022).

Discontinuous change can also be interpreted as a distinct event. Thus, readiness for change seen as attitude to the specific initiative is easier deployed with discontinuous change. Readiness assessment is mostly intervention-specific, needs to be customized or tailored prior to use (Miake-Lye et al. 2020) and would differ at individual and organization levels (Weiner et al. 2020).

#### *5.4. Change as Incremental vs. Revolutionary*

Incremental change describes a gradual process of realigning the organization through accumulation of small changes (Maes and Hootegem 2011). It aims at achieving congruence, considers feedback from previous actions and incorporates it in the ongoing process. The right cognitive and affective attitude to change, as captured by readiness for change, would keep the energy and focus of the organization. Rafferty and Simons (2006) find that individuals who support and feel capable of implementing a less intense change (fine-tuning) will also be more likely to support and feel capable of implementing more wide-ranging change (transformative, revolutionary). Similar to the case of continuous change, it might be challenging to assess the readiness level throughout the incremental change. The mechanisms to generate support (i.e., build readiness) would need particular attention when dealing with incremental change (Rafferty and Simons 2006).

Revolutionary change relates to a process of massive changes at once and alters radically essential elements of the organization such as formal structures and decisionmaking routines (Maes and Hootegem 2011). In fact, readiness is more often studied in the context of radical, transformative changes (Rafferty and Simons 2006). Readiness is an important factor to ensure the members of the organization share the goal, see the benefits and believe they can accomplish the revolutionary change. Organizational change capacity would provide the necessary abilities to complete it.

Table 3 below maps the role of the two concepts to selected dimensions of change and their attributes.

**Table 3.** Types of Change.


#### **6. Discussion and Conclusions**

The search for organizational change success factors is ongoing and will continue to grow in relevance in turbulent and dynamic environments. Readiness for change and organizational capacity for change are two concepts attempting to help organizations in navigating change. Organizational capacity for change being a newer and less empirically explored construct is often confused with readiness for change. The analysis in this article contributes to delineating the two constructs and clarifying their relationship.

To answer the first research question and differentiate the two constructs, the analysis explores their theoretical assumptions, dimensions, and antecedents.

The review of *theoretical lens* applied to the two concepts—readiness for change and organizational capacity for change—indicates the differences in their conceptualization. Readiness for change reflects the psychological predispositions, shared understanding that a particular change initiative is beneficial (for the organization and self), desired and possible to implement by the organization. It is a mindset—beliefs, attitudes, and intentions that can be assessed before and during the implementation (Vakola 2014) as well as influenced (Armenakis et al. 1993). Thus, it can be seen as situational. There are calls to incorporate dynamism in explaining readiness for change and to reflect past experiences and group norms, interpersonal, and social dynamics (Stevens 2013; Vakola 2014). This article proposes that such a dynamism might be reflected through the relationship between readiness and capacity for change. The adequate change-related processes and practices within the organization that are collectively built (Klarner et al. 2008) could help boost the motivation for future change initiatives.

These processes and practices aimed at changing the organization to respond to dynamic markets and to support building a sustainable competitive advantage are captured by the dynamic capabilities framework. The findings in this article align with Soparnot (2011) who defines OCC as a skill, competence to adapt, a proactive approach which may be built and maintained to serve the organization many times, and thus distinguishes it from change management.

This article aligns with the dynamic capabilities lens and thus supports extant empirical and theoretical contributions (Oxtoby et al. 2002; Judge and Elenkov 2005; Klarner et al. 2007; Heckmann et al. 2016). The analysis findings disagree with Soparnot who distinguishes organizational capacity for change from dynamic capabilities: "*where change capacity may be qualified as dynamic capacity, it should not be confused with it*" (2011, p. 645). He suggests that the change capacity aims to explain how the new strategic and organizational reconfigurations happen, while dynamic capabilities only identify the routines that enable these renewals.

The organizational capacity for change conceptualized as a dynamic capability could be seen as an antecedent to readiness for change. In fact, some of the antecedents to readiness are identified in this article as dimensions of organizational capacity for change. These include elements of the internal context such as climate, experience with past changes, learning, transformational leadership, structure, but exclude external context and personality characteristics.

To answer the second research question and define the relationship between the two constructs, the analysis explores their role in selected types of change. This responds to the call for more research on attitudes such as readiness for different types of change (Rafferty and Simons 2006; Weiner et al. 2020) and limited empirical evidence on OCC (Supriharyanti and Sukoco 2022). The analysis concludes that the two constructs share a role and can both be beneficial in certain types of change. Unlike readiness, organizational capacity for change could support organizations in navigating continuous and adaptive changes.

Readiness, defined as an attitude, can be assessed and developed in relation to a definable change, seen as a distinct event. Thus, it can assess to what extent the members of the organization understand and agree with its goal, believe they can achieve it and that it is beneficial (for the organization and selves). It can facilitate changes which are planned, transformational, discontinuous, both incremental and revolutionary. It might be helpful in keeping the focus in the case of changes which are continuous and adaptive, although the readiness assessment might be more cumbersome.

Capacity for change, defined as a capability to implement a change, can be assessed and developed in relation to multiple, continuous and adaptive changes. This aligns with previous contributions (Andreeva and Ritala 2016). OCC can provide the capabilities within the organization to implement different types of changes and be seen as an antecedent, based on which readiness for change can be developed. The organizational change capabilities (drawing on processes, flexibility, climate, leadership, learning, culture) could support building the shared beliefs and attitudes that the organization will be able to implement a particular initiative. This proposition aligns with Katsaros et al. (2020) conclusion that to develop readiness demands building dynamic core competences, among others.

This research bears its limitations. The scope of reviewed theoretical and empirical contributions does not claim to be exhaustive in scope and detail. However, the aim here was to highlight key distinctions and point at possible relations between the two concepts which impacted the selection of articles reviewed. Second, the empirical evidence on organizational capacity for change is limited which makes it difficult to generalize conclusions and implications.

Several findings in this article are inconclusive and need to be empirically tested. These are used to formulate some directions for further research.

First, although the dynamic capabilities framework is widely cited as a theoretical background in defining OCC, this claim still lacks enough empirical grounding. Andreeva and Ritala (2016) propose capacity for change to be regarded as a generic dynamic capability as opposed to domain-specific capabilities. That is, OCC enables dynamic capabilities aimed at changing specific processes, practices, structures in specific domains, which in turn enable ordinary capabilities. OCC however, is largely omitted in dynamic capabilities reviews. A recent taxonomy by Leemann and Kanbach (2022) scopes empirical research since 2007 to identify 240 idiosyncratic dynamic capabilities organized into 19 sub-capabilities within the triad of sensing, seizing, and transforming. Whether organizational capacity

for change fits into the known classifications of dynamic capabilities remains a question for further research. Similarly, more empirical research is needed to clarify the link and map capacity for change to organizational ambidexterity typology (see Carter (2015) for a proposed approach).

Second, this article steps on dynamic capabilities' antecedents applied also by Supriharyanti and Sukoco (2022). Antecedents of OCC are yet largely explored (Heckmann et al. 2016). Further empirical research would help position antecedents of readiness and capacity for change and support—or not—this article's propositions.

Third, empirical evidence is needed to test the relationship between the two constructs. The OCC dimensions should also reflect their dynamic properties. Seen as skills, abilities, procedures and processes, readiness for change antecedents appear to be dimensions of the dynamic capability OCC. Reviewing existing scales to measure OCC and testing the relationship to readiness for change might bring further insights to the relationship between the two concepts. This might help address the lack of sufficient clarity and empirical results to support a generally accepted definition of OCC as a distinct concept from readiness for change.

Fourth, the outcomes of organizational capacity for change and readiness for change were omitted from the scope of this article. However, to fully distinguish the two concepts, exploring their outcomes would be necessary. Outcomes of readiness for change are generally associated with change supportive behaviors (Holt et al. 2007; Rafferty et al. 2013). The number of studies examining the influence of readiness on adoption and implementation of change, though, are limited, and evidence to support the criticality of readiness as a precursor to successful change is still to be collected (Weiner et al. 2020). Likewise, research on OCC outcomes is far from sufficient. Most of the empirical studies on OCC are aimed at identifying its dimensions (Oxtoby et al. 2002; Klarner et al. 2008; Meyer and Stensaker 2006), testing the relationship to organizational performance (Judge et al. 2006; Judge and Elenkov 2005; Adna and Sukoco 2020) or change project performance (Heckmann et al. 2016). Existing empirical research focuses more on the relationship of OCC to performance related outcomes. The non-performance related outcomes (such as innovation process, resilience, market orientation) are underexplored (Supriharyanti and Sukoco 2022). These however seem to be in essence capabilities and may provide the link to dynamic capabilities framework. OCC should be conceptualized as impacting ordinary capabilities that produce results. Schilke et al. (2018) identify two groups of consequences of dynamic capabilities (performance-related and change-related) and two possible ways of reaching them. One is direct influence of dynamic capabilities on consequences that could be moderated by two groups of factors (organizational and environmental). The second is through the influence of dynamic capabilities on the resource base which in turn influences the consequences. Identifying the mechanisms and ordinary capabilities which are influenced by OCC could help clarify the concept and position it into the dynamic capabilities domain.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

### **Appendix A**



#### **References**


Meyer, Christine B., and Inger G. Stensaker. 2006. Developing Capacity for Change. *Journal of Change Management* 6: 217–31. [CrossRef]


Weiner, Bryan J., Alecia S. Clary, Stacey L. Klaman, Kea Turner, and Amir Alishahi-Tabriz. 2020. Organizational Readiness for Change: What We Know, What We Think We Know, and What We Need to Know. In *Implementation Science 3.0*. Edited by Bianca Albers, Aron Shlonsky and Robyn Mildon. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Winter, Sidney G. 2003. Understading Dynamic Capabilities. *Strategic Management Journal* 24: 991–95. [CrossRef]

Worley, Christopher G., and Claudy Jules. 2020. COVID-19's Uncomfortable Revelations About Agile and Sustainable Organizations in a VUCA World. *The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science* 56: 279–83. [CrossRef]

Zhao, Xueyin, and Robert M. Goodman. 2018. Western organizational change capacity theory and its application to public health organizations in China: A multiple case analysis. *International Journal of Health Planning and Management.* 34: e509–e535. [CrossRef]
