Transformation vs. Change as Adaptation
It has been said that an organization is made up of a group of people who collaborate in a system
to achieve their individual and collective goals (Muo & Muo, 2014). Within the complicated
systems known as organizations, people play their respective functions (Armstrong, 2009). An
organization is a group of people who cooperate with one another to attain a long-term objective
and, in doing so, further their own personal objectives. According to Robbins (2003), an
organization is a continually coordinated social unit made up of two or more individuals that
operates on a generally constant basis to accomplish shared objectives.
A structure of roles and a flow of activities created for the aim of achieving a common goal can
also be considered as an organization. This concept places a focus on the significance of
organizational structure and procedures in the pursuit of common objectives (Robey and
Sales,1994, in Oghojafor, Muo & Aduloju, 2012: 83). The transition to a new or different
condition or state of affairs can be summed up in one word: change. It implies that the current
state of affairs will give way to something novel or exceptional. According to Burnes (2004),
both at the operational and strategic levels, change is a constant aspect of organizational
existence. There should be no question about how important it is for any company to be able to
determine where it needs to be in the future and how to handle the changes that will be necessary
to get there (Todnem, 2005).
Organizations are under constant pressure to change as a result of the complexity of current
events and the rapid advancement of technology. Organizations are forced to implement change
initiatives by a variety of causes and ongoing developments. Indeed, both the businesses' internal
and external environments place pressure on them to adapt. (2013) Yilmaz and Kilicoglu The
external sources may emerge from advancements in technology, pressure from interest groups
outside the firm, such the government, or rival companies in the sector.
general approach to diagnosis, creating an action plan, carrying it out, and evaluating its success.
Readyness "reflects the degree to which an individual or individuals are cognitively and
emotionally disposed to accept, embrace, and implement a specific strategy to consciously alter
the status quo," according to Holt et al. (2007, p. 235). That is, the ability to adapt to change can
support a clear plan of action. Clarity on the components of the change effort intended is
necessary for readiness for change, which is defined as "the cognitive prelude to the behavior of
either resistance to, or support for, a change effort" (Armenakis et al. 1993, p. 683). In light of
the suggested revision, Wang et al. (2020) define readiness as the state of being both
psychologically and behaviorally ready to act (i.e., willing and able). By its substance, the
proposed change can be identified as deliberate and well-planned. When a planned initiative's
purpose, scope, and effects are established, evaluating preparedness for change can help create or
modify the action plan. Recent empirical studies evaluate levels of readiness in the context of
planned change, including process improvements and innovation in the context of a project-
based industry (Akunyumu et al., 2021), knowledge acquisition in the professional services
industry (Rusly et al., 2015), and innovative projects in clusters (Jamai et al. 2022).
Regarding how change is started, emergent change adopts a different perspective. Its
conceptualization is founded on the idea that change could be emergent and unplanned, rather
than planned beforehand, and that local improvisations might lead to generalizations (Orlikowski
1996). It is connected to the chance to utilize the organization's existing tacit knowledge, which
senior management could not otherwise tap into while developing a planned change program
(Maes and Hootegem, 2011). One of the limitations of emergent change, according to Maes and
Hootegem (2011), is that it is diffused (not focused) and is better suited for implementation in
operations, plants, and stores than it is for strategy, firm-level, or corporate transformation.
Because of this, assessing readiness level would be difficult given the nature of emergent change.
Utilizing "tacit knowledge in the company" relates to routine capabilities that dynamic
capabilities can change and operate. However, the ability of an organization to adapt may be
advantageous if it has the right leadership, culture, and organizational architecture. According to
McGuiness et al. (2002) and Benebroek Gravenhorst et al. (2003), organizational change
capability (OCC) relates to how open and accepting an organization is of change in general.
There are two types of change depending on how significant it is and how it affects the
organization (Maes and Hootegem 2011). While transformation is extreme and revolutionary,
adaptation is less intensive and leads to organizational realignment.
According to Armenakis et al. (1993), the organizational context could be used to build readiness
for change, which relates to the cognitive and affective components of this attitude (Rafferty et
al. 2013). Through effective translation of new strategic ideas into working practices or routines,
it can be especially helpful in assuring the adoption and acceptance of a change program
(Armenakis et al. 1993). Transformations, also known as paradigm shifts, entail adopting or
developing the right attitude toward the necessary change. Thus, activities for transformational
change will be supported through readiness assessment and development. In their 2017 article,
Hameed et al. explore readiness in public sector R&D firms that are undergoing significant
internal restructuring and anticipate more procedural changes. In the context of the paradigm
shift toward innovation, preparedness is empirically investigated in order to transform
educational systems (Akunyumu et al., 2021). (Wang et al. 2020).
The specific dynamic organizational capabilities that enable the organization to continuously
reconfigure, adapt, and build new operational capabilities are often used to describe change
capacity (Heckmann et al. 2016). As a result, it has nothing to do with attitudes, but rather it
offers the capabilities that can be used to carry out various adaptations and transformations. The
ability to adapt to change helps businesses to execute changes as and when they are required
(Andreeva and Ritala 2016).
The frequency dimension distinguishes how frequently a change occurs (Maes and Hootegem
2011). Ongoing, smaller-scope modifications or adaptations are linked to continuous change at
the micro level, which may or may not lead to large-scale transformation. This could also apply
to other adjustments that might or might not be connected.
Thinking of readiness as a cyclical and multifaceted process may be related to ongoing change
and various changes (Stevens 2013). (Rafferty and Simons 2006).
It's crucial to maintain the definition of readiness as a "state of preparedness for future action,"
nevertheless (Weiner et al. 2020). That is, "ready for" a particular modification or action. A
perspective on several changes raises issues like how to engage and inspire the organization for
each new change (Schwarz and Stensaker 2014). The ability to adapt would be a more practical
starting point; some authors even go so far as to attribute adaptability primarily to continual
change (Andreeva and Ritala 2016).
Organizations would need to increase their capacity for change if they saw change as a
continuous process in order to successfully navigate it. It enables the deployment of changes in a
cascading series of linked change initiatives (McGuiness and Morgan 2005) or numerous
modifications (Klarner et al. 2007) without jeopardizing later change processes (Meyer and
Stensaker 2006). (Meyer and Stensaker 2006). Both discontinuous and continuous change can be
supported by change capacity, which Judge et al. (2009) define as procedures, routines,
leadership, and attitudes. Such a claim is supported by the empirical data that is now available;
some research discuss OCC in the context of a discontinuous event, while others see it as a
general dynamic capability supporting many and continuous alterations (Supriharyanti and
Sukoco 2022).
Discontinuous change may also be seen as a unique occurrence. Therefore, discontinuous change
makes it easier to implement preparedness for change as an attitude toward the particular
endeavor. The majority of readiness assessments are intervention-specific, need to be
personalized or tailored before usage, and vary at the individual and organizational levels
(Miake-Lye et al., 2020). (Weiner et al. 2020).
Incremental change refers to a method of realigning the organization that involves a series of
modest adjustments over time (Maes and Hootegem 2011). Congruence is the end goal, and the
process takes input from prior acts into account and applies it to current activities. The
organization would maintain its drive and concentration if its members had the proper cognitive
and affective attitude toward change, as measured by readiness for change. According to
Rafferty and Simons (2006), people who are in favor of and feel capable of executing a less
drastic change (fine-tuning) are also more likely to be in favor of and feel capable of
implementing a change that is more extensive (transformative, revolutionary). Assessing the
readiness level throughout incremental change may be difficult, just like in the case of
continuous change. When dealing with incremental change, the procedures to generate support
(i.e., build readiness) would require special consideration (Rafferty and Simons 2006).
The term "revolutionary transformation" refers to a series of significant changes that occur all at
once and drastically affect fundamental organizational components including formal structures
and decision-making processes (Maes and Hootegem 2011). In actuality, radical, transformative
changes are more frequently explored in the context of preparation (Rafferty and Simons 2006).
In order for the organization's members to think they can bring about the revolutionary change,
they must share the aim, perceive the benefits, and be ready. The skills required to complete it
would be provided through organizational change capacity.
Two ideas that aim to aid organizations in navigating change are organizational capacity for
change and readiness for change. Being a more recent and empirically understudied concept,
organizational capacity for change is frequently conflated with readiness for change. The
analysis in this article helps to distinguish the two constructs and make sense of how they relate
to one another.
The study examines the theoretical presumptions, dimensions, and antecedents of the two notions
in order to distinguish them and respond to the first research question.
The conceptualization of the two concepts—readiness for change and organizational capacity for
change—varies when viewed through various theoretical lenses.
The ability to adapt to change is a reflection of one's psychological make-up, as well as of the
organization's goal for and ability to accomplish a particular change project. It is a state of mind
—beliefs, attitudes, and intentions that may be evaluated before and during implementation as
well as modified (Vakola, 2014). (Armenakis et al. 1993). It can therefore be viewed as
situational. There are requests to reflect on prior experiences and group norms as well as
interpersonal and social dynamics when dynamism is used to explain preparedness for change
(Stevens 2013; Vakola 2014). This article suggests that the relationship between readiness and
ability for change may serve as a reflection of such dynamic. Future change initiatives may be
more motivated if the organization has developed suitable change-related processes and practices
(Klarner et al. 2008).
The dynamic capabilities framework encompasses these procedures and methods intended to
adapt the organization to respond to dynamic markets and to enable the development of a
sustainable competitive advantage. The findings of this study are consistent with those of
Soparnot (2011), who distinguishes OCC from change management by defining it as a skill, a
competency to adapt, and a proactive strategy that can be cultivated and maintained to serve the
business many times. While Soparnot distinguishes between dynamic capacities and
organizational capacity for change, the research' findings show that these two concepts should
not be utilized interchangeably (2011, p. 645). He contends that while dynamic capabilities just
describe the processes that support periodic renewals, change capacity tries to explain how new
organizational and strategic reconfigurations occur.
An indicator of readiness for change could be the organizational capacity for change considered
as a dynamic competence. In reality, this essay identifies several of the precursors of readiness as
aspects of organizational flexibility. These include aspects of the internal context including
climate, past change experience, learning, transformational leadership, and structure but do not
include aspects of the exterior context and personality traits.
The analysis investigates their function in particular types of change in order to respond to the
second research question and establish the relationship between the two constructs. This
addresses the need for additional study on attitudes, such as readiness for various sorts of change
(Rafferty and Simons 2006; Weiner et al. 2020) and the paucity of actual data on OCC
(Supriharyanti and Sukoco 2022). The research comes to the conclusion that both conceptions
have a function and can be helpful in specific forms of change. In contrast to preparation,
organizational capacity for change may help businesses deal with ongoing, adaptive changes.
A definite shift, viewed as a distinct event, can be examined in connection to readiness, which is
described as an attitude, and it can be cultivated. As a result, it can determine whether or not the
organization's members understand and concur with its aim, think they can accomplish it, and
think it would be useful (for the organization and selves). It can support planned, transformative,
discontinuous, gradual, and revolutionary changes. Even if the readiness evaluation could be
more difficult, it might be useful in preserving the focus in the case of constant and adaptable
adjustments.
Capacity for change, which is the ability to put a change into practice, can be evaluated and
grown in relation to various, ongoing, and adaptive changes. This is consistent with earlier
contributions (Andreeva and Ritala 2016). OCC can give the organization the tools it needs to
make various changes and can be viewed as a prelude to the development of ready for change.
Building shared views and attitudes that the organization will be able to accomplish a specific
program could be supported by the organizational change capabilities (drawing on processes,
flexibility, climate, leadership, learning, and culture). This idea is consistent with Katsaros et
al(2020) .'s conclusion that developing preparedness necessitates, among other things,
developing dynamic core capabilities.
This study has its drawbacks. The theoretical and empirical contributions that have been
discussed do not purport to be exhaustive in scope or detail. However, the objective of this study
was to draw attention to important differences and suggest probable connections between the two
ideas, which had an impact on the choice of papers for evaluation. Second, there is a dearth of
empirical data on organizational flexibility, which makes it challenging to draw broad findings
and draw consequences.
Several of the conclusions in this article need to be empirically tested because they are not
conclusive.
These are utilized to develop some suggestions for future study directions.
First off, despite frequently being used as a theoretical foundation in developing OCC, the
dynamic capabilities framework, this argument still lacks sufficient empirical support. In contrast
to domain-specific capacities, Andreeva and Ritala (2016) propose that capacity for change be
treated as a general dynamic capability. To put it another way, OCC makes it possible to change
particular structures, practices, and procedures in particular domains, which in turn makes it
possible to use regular capabilities. However, in dynamic capability reviews, OCC is often
ignored. The triad of perceiving, seizing, and transforming is comprised of 240 distinctive
dynamic capabilities that have been classified into 19 sub-capabilities according to a recent
taxonomy by Leemann & Kanbach (2022). Research is still needed to determine if organizational
capacity for change falls under the recognized categories of dynamic capacities. Similar to this,
more empirical study is required to define the relationship between organizational ambidexterity
typology and capacity for change (Carter (2015) offers a suggested methodology).
Second, this article examines the precedents for dynamic capacities that Supri- haryanti and
Sukoco also used (2022). The causes of OCC have not been thoroughly studied (Heckmann et al.
2016). Additional empirical study would address the antecedents of readiness and capacity for
change and confirm or refute the assertions made in this paper.
Third, empirical proof is required to determine whether the two conceptions are related.
They should also be dynamically represented in the OCC dimensions. The readiness for change
antecedents appear to be characteristics of the dynamic capability OCC when viewed as talents,
abilities, procedures, and processes. Further understanding of the relationship between OCC and
preparedness for change may be gained by reviewing the OCC measurement scales currently in
use and analyzing the results. The lack of sufficient clarity and empirical evidence to establish a
widely recognized definition of OCC as a separate notion from readiness for change may be
addressed by doing this.
Fourth, the focus of this article did not include the results of organizational transformation
preparedness and capacity. However, examining their results would be required in order to
completely separate the two conceptions. According to Holt et al. (2007) and Rafferty et al.
(2013), change-supportive behaviors are typically connected with outcomes of preparedness for
change. There aren't many research looking at how preparedness affects adoption and
implementation of change, and more data is needed to show how important readiness is as a
precondition for successful change (Weiner et al. 2020).
The amount of study on OCC results is also very inadequate. The majority of empirical studies
on OCC focus on defining its components (Oxtoby et al. 2002; Klarner et al. 2008; Meyer and
Stensaker 2006), examining the relationship with organizational performance (Judge et al. 2006;
Judge and Elenkov 2005; Adna and Sukoco 2020), or evaluating the performance of change
projects (Heckmann et al. 2016). The association between OCC and outcomes that are relevant to
performance is the main focus of current empirical study. According to Supriharyanti and
Sukoco 2022, the non-performance related consequences are understudied. Examples include the
innovation process, resilience, and market orientation. These, however, appear to be
fundamentally capabilities and might offer the connection to the framework for dynamic
capabilities. OCC should be thought of as affecting common capacities that yield results.
Performance-related and change-related outcomes of dynamic capabilities, as well as two
approaches to achieving them, are identified by Schilke et al. (2018). One is the direct impact of
dynamic capacities on outcomes, which could be tempered by two categories of influences
(organizational and environmental). The second involves how dynamic capabilities affect the
resource base, which in turn affects the outcomes. Clarifying the idea and placing it within the
dynamic capabilities domain may be accomplished by identifying the mechanisms and everyday
capabilities that are affected by OCC.
References
Adna, Beta Embriyono, and Badri Munir Sukoco. 2020. Managerial cognitive capabilities,
organizational capacity for change, and performance: The moderating effect of social capital.
Cogent Business & Management 7: 1843310.
Akunyumu, Stephen, Frank D. K. Fugar, Emmanuel Adinyira, and James Cofie Danku. 2021. A
review of models for assessing readiness of construction organisations to innovate. Construction
Innovation 21: 279–99.
Amis, John M., and Brian D. Janz. 2020. Leading Change in Response to COVID-19. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 56: 272–78.
Andreeva, Tatiana, and Paavo Ritala. 2016. What are the sources of capability dynamism?
Reconceptualizing dynamic capabilities
from the perspective of organizational change. Baltic Journal of Management 11: 238–59.
Armenakis, Achilles A., and Stanley G. Harris. 2009. Reflections: Our Journey in Organizational
Change Research and Practice. Journal of Change Management 9: 127–42.
Armenakis, Achilles A., Stanley G. Harris, and Kevin W. Mossholder. 1993. Creating Readiness
for Organizational Change. Human Relations 46: 681–703.
Arnulf, Jan Ketil. 2012. Organisational Change Capacity and Composition of Management
Teams: A Visualisation of How Personality Traits May Restrain Team Adaptability. Teams
Performance Management 18: 433–54.
Bamford, David R., and Paul L. Forrester. 2003. Managing planned and emergent change within
an operations management environment. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 23: 546–64.
Barreto, Ilídio. 2010. Dynamic Capabilities: A Review of Past Research and an Agenda for the
Future. Journal of Management 36: 256–80.
