Employee Readiness to Change and Individual Intelligence:

The Facilitating Role of Process and Contextual factors

Devi Soumyaja1 T. J. Kamalanabhan2 Sanghamitra Bhattacharyya3
Abstract
Employees lack of adaptability to change has been found to be a crucial reason for high failure rate of organizational
change efforts. The present study, attempts to look at the predictors of employee readiness to change from a micro-system
perspective. It is expected that an employees practical intelligence and creative behavior, along with contextual factors
such as trust in top management and history of change, and process factors such as participation in decision making and
quality of communication will significantly influence employees readiness to change. Commitment to change is expected
to act as a mediator variable. Inventory for measuring practical intelligence is developed for the purpose of this study
and other items are taken from existing scales after reestablishing their reliability. A pilot study was conducted on a sample
of 54 post graduate management students who have minimum two years of work experience and the results of this study
are also discussed. Regression and mediated regression was used for analyzing the data and the results are discussed.
Keywords: Readiness to change, practical intelligence, process and context factors.
JEL Classification: M12

1. iNTRODUCTION
As per Roffey Parks annual cross-sector work place survey
between 2001 and 2005, over 90 percent of the respondents
indicated that their organization had undergone some change
programme, largely involving restructuring, in the previous
two years (Holbeche, 2006). In spite of substantial existing
literature on change management, most significant change
initiatives fail to meet expectations. According to Beer and
Nohria (2000), seven out of ten change efforts that are critical
to organizational success fail to achieve their intended results.
Studies show that in most organizations, two out of three
transformation initiatives fail. The more things change, the
more they stay the same (Sirkin, Keenan and Jackson, 2005).
According to research by the Gartner group (Holbeche, 2006),
the main reason why change initiatives fail is the inability of
people to adapt and become change-able.
Since organizations consist of people and are made by
people, organizational change is assumed to be mediated
through individual changes (Schein, 1980). Thus, members
of an organization must be the key source of energy for
organizational change processes, and for this reason, their
commitment and involvement are crucial factors for successful
organizational change. Inspite of this however, research
dealing with organizational change has been largely dominated
by a macro, system-oriented focus. Though researchers have
called for a more micro, person-oriented focus pertaining
to issues important in change (Bray, 1994), micro-level
research on organizational change remains limited. Several
studies have observed that management usually focuses on
technical elements of change with a tendency to neglect the
equally important human element (Beer and Nohria, 2000;
Bovey and Hede, 2001; George and Jones, 2001).Despite
the popularity of the technological change approach, several
studies demonstrated that adopting this perspective does
not always lead to successful change (Beer and Nohria,
2000).On the contrary, many organizational changes result

in outright failure because the employees in the organization

are not ready for change. Therefore, in order to successfully
lead an organization through major change, it is important
for management to consider both the human and technical
side of change. Some authors even go one step further in
stating that if people in an organization are not motivated or
ready for change, the organizational change is doomed to fail
(George and Jones, 2001; Antoni, 2004). Accordingly, several
authors have called for a more person-focused approach to
the study of organizational change (Judge, Thoreson, Pucick
and Welbourne, 1999; Wanberg and Banas, 2000; Vakola
and Nikolaou, 2005). This study attempts to take a holistic
perspective of the change management by considering the
individual, process and context factors.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Readiness for change
Lewins model of change process is one of the oldest models on
human systems. In his model, Lewin has proposed three stages
to bring about change in any system- unfreezing, changing
and refreezing (Lewin, 1954). Schein (1987) further explored
Lewins three-stage process model and thereby provided an
example of contemporary approach to organizational change.
He considered unfreezing as a process of creating readiness
for change and motivation (disconfirmation, introduction of guilt
or anxiety and creation of psychological safety). The second
step for Scheins changing (cognitive restructuring) is the
process of helping people to see things differently and react
differently in the future. The third step involves integrating the
process through personal refreezing and relational refreezing.
Holt, Armenakis, Feild and Harris (2007) further reinforced
this by identifying that the process of implementing change
successfully consists of three stages, namely: 1) readiness
to change, 2) adoption, and 3) institutionalization. Thus,
understanding employee readiness to change could serve as a
guide to organizational leaders as they approach changes and
determine the best mode of implementing those changes.

Devi Soumyaja - Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India.
T. J. Kamalanabhan - Ph.D, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India.
3
Sanghamitra Bhattacharyya - Ph.D, Feedback Foundation, Delhi, India.
1
2

IJBIT/ Volume 4/ Issue 2 /April 2011- September 2011 | 85

Devi Soumyaja et al.

Employee Readiness to Change and Individual Intelligence:The Facilitating Role of Process and Contextual factors

Readiness to change is the cognitive state comprising of

beliefs, attitudes and intentions toward a change effort
(Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder, 1993). When readiness
for change exists, the organization is primed to embrace
change and resistance is reduced. If organizational members
are not ready, the change may be rejected, and organizational
members may engage in negative reactions such as sabotage,
absenteeism and output restriction. In fact, readiness for
change is the cognitive precursor to resistance for change
(Armenakis et al, 1993). Some authors consider readiness to
change as a multidimensional construct measured through
cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions (Piderit, 2000;
Abdulrashid, Sambasivan and Rahman, 2003; Bouckenooghe,
2007) whereas several others consider it as an unidimensional
construct (Hanpachern, Morgan and Griego, 1998; Madsen,
Miller and John, 2005; Holt et al, 2007). However, the
three dimensions of readiness to change were found to be
overlapping with the items corresponding to commitment to
change dimensions developed by Herscovitch and Meyer
(2002). Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, no study
till date has used both these constructs together (readiness
to change and commitment to change). Hence, this study
proposes to use readiness to change as a one-dimensional
construct and is the dependent variable for the study.
Holt et al (2007) conceptualized antecedents of readiness to
change in terms of context, content, process and individual
factors. Organizations change and act through their members
and even the most collective activities that take place in
organizations are the result of some amalgamation of the
activities of individual organizational members. Thus, the
first step towards understanding models and theories of
organizational change is nothing but understanding change at
the individual level. Given the fact that change is an affectively
laden process, it may be informative to explore how individual
differences may result in people being more or less likely to
adapt to the cycle of change.
2.2 Antecedents of readiness for change
Individual factor: Intelligence
Intelligence is by and large a neglected topic in the area of
organizational behaviour. Till the last decade, none of the
organizational behavior text books carried any reference to
the concept of intelligence. Only by mid 90s had the concept
of IQ (Intelligence Quotient) gained momentum, thanks to the
concept of emotional intelligence popularized by Goleman
(1995).
Long before Goleman however, as early as 1920, Thorndike
had written about social intelligence. As per him, intelligence
was of three forms, namely - abstract intelligence, mechanical
intelligence and people/social intelligence (as quoted in
Sternberg, 2000). Wechsler (1950) acknowledged that the
Picture Arrangement subtest of the Weschler Adult Intelligence
Scale (WAIS) might serve as a measure of social intelligence,
because it assesses the individuals ability to comprehend
social situations. In his view, however, social intelligence is
just general intelligence applied to social situations. According
to him, intelligence is not just the ability to learn, to abstract,
to profit from experience but also to adjust and achieve. For
the present study, individual intelligence is conceptualized in
terms of Sternbergs (1985) triarchy theory of intelligence
analytical, creative and practical intelligence. Sternberg and
his colleagues have shown with some success the relative
IJBIT/ Volume 4/ Issue 2 /April 2011- September 2011 | 86

independence of the three proposed aspects of intelligence.

For example, a confirmatory factor analysis of a research-based
instrument, the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test, revealed three
distinct and relatively independent factors corresponding to the
analytical, creative, and practical aspects of intelligence.
Nevo and Chawrski (1997) explored the relationship between
non-academic aspects of intelligence (tacit knowledge and
practical intelligence): practical intelligence and tacit knowledge
was found to explain a significant proportion of professional
success in immigration (Nevo and Chawarski, 1997). Social
intelligence is often regarded as the construct origin of
emotional intelligence and practical intelligence (Roberts,
Zeidner, Matthews, 2001). Analytical, practical, and creative
intelligence were all found to be related in some degree to
self-reported everyday adaptive functioning (Grigorenko and
Sternberg, 2001).Sternberg and Hedlund (2002) pointed out
that although practical intelligence is conceptualized as similar
or same as social intelligence, practical intelligence is not
limited to its use in solving problems of social nature. Individual
employees emotional and practical intelligence were found
to be significantly related to their level of commitment to the
organization (Humphreys, Weyant and Sprague, 2003).
Emotional intelligence of the employee was found to be
positively related to employee attitude towards change as well
as to facilitate the change process (Huy, 1999; Vakola and
Nikolaou, 2005; Chrusciel, 2006). As per Herkenhoff (2004),
another common area of change within organizations involves
seeking higher levels of employee initiative and innovation.
Creative people not just adapt easily to change but are also
more likely to lead it. For the present study, practical intelligence
and creative intelligence are considered as independent
variables which are taken from Sternbergs (1985) triarchy
theory of intelligence.
Process factors: Participation from employees and Quality
of communication
One of the earlier studies that noted the significance of
participation of employees in the change process is that by
Coch and French (1948). Through a variety of experiments
at the Harwood Manufacturing Plant, they observed that
groups that were allowed to participate in the design and
development of change had a much lower resistance than
those who did not. Employees must believe that their opinions
have been heard and given respect and careful consideration
(Reichers, Wanous and Austin, 1997). If the employees are
encouraged to participate and their inputs are consistently and
genuinely enlisted, it is expected to increase commitment and
performance, reduce resistance to change and sometimes even
enhance the acceptance of relatively unfavorable decisions
(Wanberg and Banas, 2000).
The challenge that constantly recurs in all change projects is
managements struggle to overcome employees persistent
attitude to avoid change. In studies that directly examined
the influence of providing information, detailed information
about a change has been shown to reduce resistance to
change (Wanberg and Banas, 2000). Employees that reported
receiving timely, informative, and useful information about an
organizational change presented a more positive evaluation
of the change and increased willingness to cooperate with
it (Wanberg and Banas, 2000). Several authors claim that
communication of change is the primary mechanism for
creating readiness for change among organizational members

Employee Readiness to Change and Individual Intelligence:The Facilitating Role of Process and Contextual factors

(Reichers et al., 1997; Armenakis and Harris, 2002; Bernerth,

2004). Poorly managed change communication often results
in widespread rumors, which tend to exaggerate the negative
aspects of the change and build resistance towards change.
Thus, the quality of communication will often determine how
employees fill in the blanks of missing change information.
Therefore, routine notice about what is happening is an
absolute must. Apart from the fact that change projects
should be announced in a timely fashion, and preferably by
management, another important issue is regarding why the
change is happening. In other words, management should
answer the question about why change is crucial. To conclude,
the quality of communication helps classify the justification for
the reasons as to why change is necessary, helps reduce the
change related uncertainty and plays a crucial role in shaping
employees readiness for change.
Context factors: Trust in top management and History of
change
It has been established that readiness for change will be strongly
undermined when the behavior by important role models (i.e.
leaders) is inconsistent with their words (Kotter, 1995). One of
the most difficult things employees experience when confronted
with change is the uncertainty, the ambiguity, the complexity
and stressfulness associated with the process and outcomes
(Difonzo and Bordia, 1998). Trust in top management is
found to be critical in implementing strategic decisions and an
essential determinant of employees openness toward change
(Korsgaard, Schweiger and Sapienza, 1995; Rousseau and
Tijoriwala, 1999; Eby, Adams, Russell and Gaby, 2000).
The readiness to change is influenced by the track record
of successfully implementing major organisational changes
(Schneider, Brief and Guzzo, 1996). People tend to develop
cynicism about new organizational change, because of
negative experiences in the past (Reichers, Wanous and
Austin, 1997; Wanous Reichers and Austin, 2000). The frame
of reference to determine the likelihood of successfulness is
the past change record.
Commitment to change
Members of an organization must be the key source of
energy for oranizational change processes, and hence
their commitment and involvement is crucial for successful
organizational change. The key challenge of change lies in
gaining employees willingness to commit to the change
effort. Herscovitch and Meyers (2002) conceptualization of
commitment to change as a three dimensional construct
affective, continuance and normative - is expected to act as a
mediator for the study. The three components of commitment
to change were found to be generally distinguishable from
the three components of organizational commitment. It was
also observed that commitment to change contributes over
and above organizational commitment to the prediction of
employees self-reported behavioral support for change
(Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002). There are not many studies
on the relationship between intelligence and commitment
to change. However, individual employees emotional and
practical intelligence were found to be significantly related to
their level of commitment to the organization (Humphreys et
al, 2003). Affective commitment to change was found to have
significant effect on the success of the change implementation
(Parish, Cadwallader and Busch, 2008). Organizational
commitment was found to act as a mediator in the change

Devi Soumyaja et al.

process (Iverson, 1996; Yousef, 2000).

3. RESEARCH GAPS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
From the literature review above, the following gaps were
identified, as relevant to the present topic of study:
Even though the triarchy theory of intelligence has been
applied in educational setting as well as in everyday adaptive
functioning, it has never been applied in an organizational
change context.
The relationship between commitment to change and
readiness to change is yet to be explored. Herscovitch and
Meyer (2002) observed that commitment to change contributes
over and above organizational commitment to the prediction
of employees self-reported behavioral support for change.
Hence it would be more interesting to explore the relationship
between commitment to change and readiness to change
than the relationship between organizational commitment and
readiness to change.
Practical intelligence was found to be positively related to
organizational commitment. However, the relationship of
other forms of intelligence with commitment to change is an
unexplored area.
Based on the above, the following conceptual framework as
given in figure 1 is proposed for our study:
Individual factors
Intelligence
Creative
Practical
Contextual
factors
Trust on top
management

Commitment
to change

Readiness
to change

History of
change
Process factors
Participation
Quality of
communication

Fig.1. Conceptual Framework explaining the

relationship among individual, process and contextual
factors & readiness to change
The hypotheses which are to be tested for this study are as
given below:
Hypothesis 1: Creative intelligence is positively related to
readiness to change
Hypothesis 2: Practical intelligence is positively related to
readiness to change
Hypothesis 3: Participation in decision making is positively
related to readiness to change
Hypothesis 4: Quality of communication is positively related
to readiness to change
Hypothesis 5: Trust in top management is positively related to
readiness to change
Hypothesis 6: Perception of positive history of change is
positively related to readiness to change
Hypothesis 7: Commitment to change mediates the influence
of creative intelligence, practical intelligence, participation
in decision making, quality of communication, trust in top
management and history of change towards readiness
IJBIT/ Volume 4/ Issue 2 /April 2011- September 2011 | 87

Employee Readiness to Change and Individual Intelligence:The Facilitating Role of Process and Contextual factors

Devi Soumyaja et al.

to change.
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Research Design
The study uses a descriptive research design. Convenience
sampling is used for drawing samples from organizations which
have undergone transformational changes. Organizations from
both service sector and manufacturing sector are considered
for the study to get a representative picture.
Over time, a common language for describing organizational
change has been established, including change that is firstorder versus second order (Nadler and Tushman, 1980),
transformational, transitional or transactional (Burke, 1994),
incremental or transformative (Nadler, 1988), and episodic
versus continuous (Weick and Quinn, 1999). These terms
generally pertain to the scale, scope, or magnitude of change
and whether the change is superficial or substantive. Scholars
have suggested that transformational changes generally have
a detrimental effect on individuals as they involve a great
deal of conflict and often bring to the fore personality issues
and other differences that have previously been sublimated,
adding to the confusion and uncertainty within the organization
(Ashford, 1988). Large-scale changes such as organizational
mergers and acquisitions, restructurings and downsizing efforts
have become very common occurrences, and researchers
have found that changes of this type are often associated with
significant, negative consequences for individuals in terms of
their attitudes and well-being (George & Jones, 2001). Rafferty
and Simons (2006) reported different degrees of readiness for
fine tuning and corporate transformation changes. Specifically,
respondents reported higher change readiness for fine-tuning
changes as opposed to corporate transformation changes.
Since transactional changes have become common in
organizations, people show relatively high readiness for such
changes. Hence the present study is concentrating only on the
second order or transformational changes.
The organizational change dynamics of large sized
organizations is entirely different from that in small sized
organizations. The literature indicates that most of the studies
in change management have used large sized organizations
as their sample. Similarly, the present study intends to focus
only on large sized organizations, with employee strengths
of 2000 or above. Employees with a minimum of one year of
experience with their present organization are included in the
study as there is a need for employees to have experienced

considerable degree of organizational changes in order to be

able to respond to the survey.
4.2 Sample
The respondents (n=56) were students who have enrolled for
a post-graduate programme in management. Only those with
minimum two years of work experience were taken for the study.
Approximately 92% of the sample consisted of males and the
rest 8% were females. Respondents had work experience in
various sectors such as IT/ITES, Banking and manufacturing.
4.3 Survey Instruments
Two sets of questionnaires were used for data collection. In
the first set, respondents were presented with a situational
judgement inventory and they were asked to pick the best
and the worst answer, for each given situation. The situational
judgement inventory was developed by the researcher for the
purpose of the study. The inventory consisted of 14 items and
it was found to have a test-retest reliability of 0.69.
In the second set, respondents were asked to react to
statements regarding the different aspects of change:
individual (e.g. creative behaviour) and organizational (e.g.
participation in decision making, quality of communication,
history of change, and trust in top management). Likert scales
with a five-point response format (1 = strongly disagree, 3 =
neutral, 5 = strongly agree) were used in the questionnaire.
These items were taken from already existing scales and have
already proven their reliability, validity and practical relevance.
The details of the scales used for the study are given in table 1.
Table 1: Coefficient alpha reliability of the study variables
Variable

No: of
items

Cronbachs
alpha

Creative behaviour

0.83

Participation in decision making

0.80

Quality of communication

0.83

Trust towards top management

0.71

History of change

0.81

Affective CTC

0.72

Continuance CTC

0.63

Normative CTC

0.61

Readiness to change

11

0.75

Table 2. Means, Standard deviations and Bivariate Correlation Matrix

Variable

SD

1.

Participation in decision making 3.07

1.16

2.

Quality of Communication

3.35

0.998

0.669**

3.

Trust in management

3.13

0.931

0.581**

0.803**

4.

History of change

3.46

0.965

0.570**

0.700** 0.737**

5.

Creative behaviour

3.88

0.427

0.117

0.118

0.133

0.109

6.

Practical intelligence

2.70

1.082

0.236

0.178

0.231

0.309*

7.

Commitment to change

3.02

0.652

0.507**

0.660** 0.680** 0.598** -0.044

0.180

8.

Readiness to change

2.44

0.517

0.463**

0.496** 0.449** 0.455** 0.152

0.169

.** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
IJBIT/ Volume 4/ Issue 2 /April 2011- September 2011 | 88

-0.215
0.395**

Employee Readiness to Change and Individual Intelligence:The Facilitating Role of Process and Contextual factors

The reliabilities for all the scales were above 0.60, which
represents good reliability measure (Hair et al., 1998).
However, one notable finding is the overall lower reliability
of the commitment to change scale and especially normative
commitment to change
5. ANALYSIS
5.1 Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations and correlations for all the
constructs in this study are given in table 2.The highest
correlation was observed between trust in management
and quality of communication. Among the three types of
commitment, affective commitment is found to have the
highest mean value.
5.2 ANOVA
Since the pilot study was conducted among students enrolled
for management programme, demographic variables like
education, work experience and age were controlled. Out
of the 56 students, only four were females. Hence the only
demographic variables which were considered for analysis are
the industry sector and the type of change they have been
part of.
One way ANOVA was conducted to check whether there is
any significant difference between these two demographic
variables with respect to their readiness to change. Results
given in table 3 and 4 indicate that the industry sector and
type of change does not significantly influence readiness to
change.
Table 3: ANOVA results for Industry sector
Sector

Service

42

Manufacturing

14

0.261

Table 5: Multiple Regression analysis predicting

readiness for change
Predictor variables

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta

CREATIVE BEH

.139

1.817

PRACTINT

.337

2.144*

PART

.285

3.213*

QUALCOMM

.516

3.690**

TRUST

.161

.112

HIS OF CHANGE

.099

1.817

** refers to significance at 0.01 level

* refers to significance at 0.05 level
Of the six predictor variables, three are found to be significant,
whereas the other three are not significant. Quality of
communication is found to be the strongest predictor of
readiness to change followed by participation in decision
making and practical intelligence. Thus the hypotheses 2,
3 and 4 are accepted while the hypotheses 1, 5 and 6 are
rejected.
5.5 Mediated Regression analysis
The study uses the four-step method developed by Baron
and Kenny (1986) for mediation analysis. The results of the
mediated regression analysis are presented in table 6.
Table 6: Mediated Regression Results
Step

Variable

Readiness to change
Creative Behaviour
Practical intelligence
Participation
Quality of Communication
Trust
History of change

0.139
0.337**
0.285*
0.516**
0.161
0.099

Commitment to change
Creative Behaviour
Practical intelligence
Participation
Quality of Communication
Trust
History of change

-0.199
-0.328*
0.108
0.517**
0.417**
0.194

Readiness to change
Commitment to change
Creative Behaviour
Practical intelligence
Participation
Quality of Communication
Trust
History of change

0.088
0.153
0.332*
0.101
0.296*
-0.154
0.111

Table 4: ANOVA results for type of change

Type of change

M&A

14

Technology change

12

Top mgmt change

14

0.925

5.3 Regression analysis

To test the hypotheses, simultaneous multiple regression
analysis was conducted with readiness for change as the
dependent variable and participation in decision making,
quality of communication, trust in top management and history
of change as the independent variables. The results indicated
that the adjusted R square value for the model is 0.215;
i.e.21.5% of the variance in readiness to change is accounted
for by the model. The F value for the model is 2.366 which is
found to be significant. Hence the overall model is found to be
significant.

Devi Soumyaja et al.

R
squared

change

0.215

0.475

0.203

0.014
0.005
0.184
0.22
0.007
0.012

Note: Variables in italics are the dependent variables

Step 1 in table 6 indicated that the independent variables
practical intelligence, participation and quality of communication

IJBIT/ Volume 4/ Issue 2 /April 2011- September 2011 | 89

Devi Soumyaja et al.

Employee Readiness to Change and Individual Intelligence:The Facilitating Role of Process and Contextual factors

are significantly related to readiness to change. The overall

model was also found to be significant (R square= 0.2115,
F=4.366, p<0.05). This result establishes that there is an effect
that may be mediated.

The second step indicated that the independent variables
practical intelligence, quality of communication and trust are
significantly related to commitment to change. The overall
model was also found to be significant (R square=0.475,
F=10.066, p<0.05). This step showed that the antecedent
variables are correlated with the mediator.
The third step indicated that the independent variables practical intelligence and quality of communication - are
significantly related to readiness to change. The overall model
is found to be significant (R square= 0.203, F=3.004, p<0.01).
The results also indicate that practical intelligence was
significantly related to readiness to change and commitment
to change in step 1 and step 2 significantly. In step 3, the
relationship between practical intelligence and readiness to
change was still significant, but the magnitude of significance
was reduced (the reduction in beta change from step 1 to step
3).
This suggests that commitment to change partly mediates the
relationship between practical intelligence and readiness to
change. Similarly, quality of communication was significantly
related to readiness to change and commitment to change
in step 1 and step 2 significantly. In step 3, the relationship
between quality of communication and readiness to change
was still significant, but the magnitude of significance was
reduced (the reduction in beta change from step 1 to step
3).This suggests that commitment to change partly mediates
the relationship between quality of communication and
readiness to change.
6. CONCLUSION
This current study explored, at the individual level of analysis,
the predictors of employee readiness to change. The study
is unique in that it used practical intelligence as one of the
predictor variables for explaining readiness to change. The
overall model was found to be significant. However, only three
of the independent variables - namely practical intelligence,
quality of communication and participation in decision making
were found to be significantly related to employee readiness
to change. Among these three, quality of communication
(= 0.517, p<0.001) is found to be the strongest predictor in
accordance with the findings of Wanberg and Banas (2000).
The next strongest predictor of readiness to change were
practical intelligence ((= 0.337, p<0.001) and participation in
decision making ((= 0.285, p<0.05). Contrary to findings from
existing literature, the contextual factors were not found to
be significantly related to readiness to change. One probable
reason for this might be the nature of the sample taken for
the study. Since the respondents were students enrolled for
management programme, they might not have been able to
correctly identify the context. Another probable reason for the
variable history of change being not significantly related to
readiness to change might be the relatively low work experience
of the respondents. The two demographic variables considered
for analysis were industry sector and type of change. Industry
sector was not found to be significant in influencing readiness
to change. This might be due to the uneven distribution
of sample across the two industry sectors, service and
manufacturing sectors. Type of change was also not found to
IJBIT/ Volume 4/ Issue 2 /April 2011- September 2011 | 90

be significant in influencing readiness to change. The variable

commitment to change was not found to be mediating the
relationship between the predictor variables (creative behavior,
practical intelligence, participation in decision making, quality
of communication, trust in management and history of change)
and readiness to change.
REFERENCES

1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

17.
18.
19.

20.

21.

Abdul Rashid,M.Z., Sambasivan,M. and Rahman,A.A.

(2003), The influence of organizational culture on attitudes
toward organizational change: The Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol.25,No.2, pp 161-179.
Antoni, C.H (2004), A motivational perspective on change
processes and outcomes: Research Note: European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol.13, No. 2, pp 197-216.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Mossholder,K. (1993),
Creating readiness for organizational change: Human Relations,
Vol.46, pp 681-703.
Armenakis, A.A., & Harris. S.G. (2002), Crafting a change
message to create transformational readiness: Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15, No.2, pp 169-183.
Ashford, S.J. (1988), Individual strategies for coping with stress
during organizational transitions:Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 24, pp 19-36.
Baron,R.M. and Kenny.D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic and statistical considerations: Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol.51, No.6, pp 1173-1182.
Beer, M and Nohria, N. (2000), Cracking the code of change:
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 ,No.3, pp 133-141.
Bernerth, J. (2004), Expanding our understanding of the change
message.:Human Resource Development Review, Vol.3,pp 3652.
Bouckenooghe, D. (2007), Psychological change climate as a
crucial catalyst of readiness for change: Dominance analysis:
Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper Series 2007/27.
Bovey, W.H and Hede,A. (2001), Resistance to Organizational
change: Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16, No.7,pp 534548.
Bray, D. W. (1994), Personnel-centered organizational diagnosis:
Diagnosis for organizational change process, Guilford Press,
New York.
Burke,W. (1994), Organization Development: A Process of
Learning and Changing, 2nd ed, Addison-Wesley, MA.
Chrusciel, D. (2006), Considerations of emotional intelligence
in dealing with change decision management: Management
Decision, Vol. 44, No.5, pp 644-657.
Coch, L and French, J. (1948), Overcoming resistance to
change: Human Relations, Vol.1, No.4,pp 512-532.
Difonzo, N. and Bordia,P. (1998), A tale of two corporations:
Managing uncertainty during organizational change: Human
Resource Management, Vol. 37,pp 295-303.
Eby,L.T., Adams,D.M; Russell.J.E.A and Gaby,S.H.(2000),
Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factor
related to employees reactions to the implementation of teambased selling: Human Relations, Vol. 53, No.3, pp 419-42.
George, J.M and Jones, G.R. (2001), Towards a process model
of individual change in organizations: Human Relations, Vol. 54,
No.4, pp 419-425.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional intelligence, Bantom Book,
NewYork.
Grigorenko, E.L and Sternberg, R.J. (2001), Analytical, creative,
and practical intelligence as predictors of self-reported adaptive
functioning: a case study in Russia: Intelligence, Vol.29,pp 5773.
Hanpachern, C., Morgan.G.A. and Griego,O.V. (1998), An
extension of the theory of margin:A framework for assessing
readiness for change: Human Resource Development
Quarterly,Vol. 9,No.4, pp 339350.
Herkenhoff, L. (2004), Culturally tuned emotional intelligence:
an effective change management tool: Strategic change, Vol.20,

Employee Readiness to Change and Individual Intelligence:The Facilitating Role of Process and Contextual factors

No.2, pp 73-82.
22. Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J.P. (2002), Commitment to
organizational change: Extension of a three component model:
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No.3,pp 474-487.
23. Holbeche,L.(2006),
Understanding
Change:
Theory,
Implementation and Success, Butterworth-Heinemann, London.
24. Holt, D.T., Armenakis,A.A., Field,H.S. and Harris,S.G. (2007),
Readiness for organizational change: Systematic development of
a scale: The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 43,No.2,
pp 232-255.
25. Humphreys, J.H., Weyant,L.E. and Sprague,R.D. (2003),
Organizational commitment: The roles of emotional and practical
intellect within the leader/follower dyad: Journal of Business
Management, Vol.9, No.2, pp 189-210.
26. Huy, Q.N (1999), Emotional capability, emotional intelligence
and radical change: Academy of Management Review, Vol.24,
No.2, pp 325-346.
27. Iverson, R.D. (1996), Employee acceptance of organizational
change: the role of organizational commitment: The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7, No.1, pp 122149.
28. Judge, T.A., Thoreson,C.J., Pucick,V. and Welbourne,T.M.
(1999), Managerial Coping with Organizational Change: A
Dispositional Perspective: Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
84, No.1, pp 107-122.
29. Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger,D.M. and Sapienza,H.J.
(1995), Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic
decisions: Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp 60-85.
Kotter, J. (1995), Leading change: Why transformation efforts
fail: Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73, No.2, pp 59-67.
30. Lewin, K. (1954), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row,
New York.
31. Madsen, S.R., Miller,D. and John,C.R. (2005), Readiness for
Organizational Change: Do Organizational Commitment and
Social Relationships in the Workplace Make a Difference?:
Human resource development quarterly, Vol. 16, No.2, pp 213233.
32. Miller,V. D., Johnson,J.R. and Grau,J. (1994), Antecedents to
willingness to participate in a planned organizational change:
Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol.11,pp 365-86.
33. Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette,M.D. & Carter,G.W.(1990), An
alternative selection procedure: The low fidelity simulation:
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75,pp 640-647.
34. Nadler,D.A.(1988), Corporate Transformation: Revitalizing
organizations for a competitive world, Jossey-Bass, San
Fransisco.
35. Nadler, D.A. and Tushman,M.L. (1980), A Model for Diagnosing
Organizational Behaviour: Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 9,
No.2, pp 35-51.
36. Nevo, B and Chawarski, M.C. (1997), Individual differences in
practical intelligence and success in immigration: Intelligence,
Vol. 25, No.2, pp 83-92.
37. Parish.J.T., Cadwallader,S, and Busch,P.(2008), Want to, need
to, ought to: employee commitment to organizational change:
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 21, No.1,
pp 32-52.
38. Rafferty, A.E and Simons,R.H. (2006), An examination of
the antecedents of readiness for fine-tuning and corporate
transformation changes: Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 20, No.3, pp 325-350.
39. Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J.P and Austin, J.T. (1997),
Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational
change: Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11,pp 48-59.
Roberts, R. D.,Zeidnerand,M. and Matthews,G. (2001),
Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an
intelligence? Some new data and conclusions: Emotion, Vol. 1,
pp 196231.
40. Rousseau, D.M and Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999), Whats a good
reason to change? Motivated reasoning and social accounts in
promoting organizational change: Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 84, No.4,pp 514-28.
41. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt,R.S. and Camerer,C.

42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.

53.
54.
55.
56.

Devi Soumyaja et al.

(1998), Not so different after all: A cross discipline view of trust:

Academy of Management Review, Vol.23, No.3, pp 393-404.
Schein, E.H. (1980), Organizational psychology. 3d ed. New
Jersey, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Schneider, B., Brief, A.P.G., & Guzzo,R.A. (1996), Creating
a climate and culture for sustainable organizational change:
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24, pp 7-19.
Sirkin, H.L., Keenan, P. and Jackson, A. (2005), The hard
side of change management: Harvard Business Review, Vol.83,
No.10, pp 108-118.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985), Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human
intelligence, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997), Successful intelligence, Plume, New
York.
Sternberg,R.J.
(2000),
Handbook
of
Intelligence,
Cambridge University Press: UK.
Sternberg, R.J. (2005), The Theory of Successful Intelligence:
Interamerican Journal of Psychology, Vol. 39, No.2, pp 189-202.
Sternberg, R.J and Hedlund,J.(2002), Practical Intelligence, g,
and Work Psychology: Human Performance, Vol 15, No. 1, pp
143160.
Vakola, M and Nikolaou,I. (2005), Attitudes towards
organizational change. What is the role of employees stress and
commitment?:Employee Relations, Vol. 27, No.2, pp 160-174.
Wanberg, C R and Banas,J.T. (2000), Predictors of outcomes
of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace: Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp 132-142.
Wanous J.P., Reichers,A.E.,& Austin, J.T. (2000), Cynicism
about organizational change: Measurement, antecedents and
correlates:Group and organization Management, Vol . 25, pp
132-153.
Wechsler, D (1950), Cognitive, Conative and Non-intellective
Intelligence: American Psychologist, Vol.5, pp 78-83.
Weick, K.E and Quinn,R.E. (1999), Organizational change and
development: Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, pp 36186.
White, J.K and Ruh,R.A. (1973), Effects of personal values
on the relationship between participation and job attitudes:
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 18,pp 506-514.
Yousef, D.A. (2000), Organizational commitment as a mediator
of the relationship between Islamic work ethic and attitude toward
organizational change: Human Relations, Vol.53, No.4, pp 513536.

IJBIT/ Volume 4/ Issue 2 /April 2011- September 2011 | 91

IJBIT/ Volume 4/ Issue 2 /April 2011- September 2011 | 92

Copyright of International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation is the property of International
Journal of Business Insights & Transformation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.