Rethinking the Concept of Organizational Readiness: What Can IS ...

Shahrasbi and Paré (2014)

Rethinking the Concept of Organizational Readiness

Rethinking the Concept of Organizational Readiness: What Can IS Researchers Learn from the Change Management Field? Research-in-Progress

Nasser Shahrasbi Ph.D. Candidate Information Technology HEC Montreal [email protected]

Guy Paré Professor Information Technology HEC Montreal [email protected]

Abstract The organizational readiness construct has been investigated in information systems (IS) research for more than two decades and has yielded tremendous insights on topics such as IS organizational adoption, IS organizational use and institutionalization, IS project success, and knowledge acquisition and sharing. Notwithstanding the strong implications of this construct for our discipline, a critical and comprehensive assessment of the conceptualization of organizational readiness in IS research has not yet been conducted. Thus, this review article proposes to fill this gap and reflects on the conceptualization of organizational readiness in prior IS literature. Building upon the recommendations made by change management theorists, it proposes a new, yet multi-dimensional conceptualization of organizational readiness, including two overarching dimensions and nine sub-dimensions. We discuss how the proposed conceptualization is likely to offer a richer understanding of this construct in the IS discipline.

Keywords Organizational readiness for change, critical review, IT-based change, change management.

Introduction The organizational readiness construct has been used in information systems (IS) research for more than two decades and has contributed to our understanding of core phenomena such as IS organizational adoption (Iacovou et al. 1995), IS organizational use and institutionalization (Hadaya and Pellerin 2008), IS project success (Zhu et al. 2010), and knowledge acquisition and sharing (Rusly et al. 2012). Notwithstanding the strong implications of this construct for IS research, a comprehensive and critical assessment of the conceptualization of organizational readiness in IS research has not yet been conducted (Paré et al. 2011; Rusly et al. 2012). Thus, the main intent of this article is to review and critically appraise how IS researchers have conceptualized this construct in their works. Prior to doing so, we describe the origins and definitions of the organizational readiness concept as found in reference disciplines. As detailed later, our results suggest two main conceptual problems with the use of the organizational readiness construct in the IS domain, namely, 1) a lack of a cumulative tradition (Keen 1980) and consensus regarding the meaning of and dimensions for the construct; and 2) a misalignment between the adopted conceptualizations found in IS research and those in the change management discipline. More specifically, we observed that the conceptualizations in previous IS studies are heavily influenced by a structural view. Indeed, we found that more than 90% of the reviewed IS articles defined the organizational readiness construct by reflecting merely on its structural attributes (e.g., resources, infrastructure, skills), regardless of the phenomenon these studies examined. While such conceptualization might seem relevant for studying particular IS phenomena and contexts (e.g. a topdown, authority-based IT organizational adoption decision) (Chwelos et al. 2001; Iacovou et al. 1995), we argue it is too simplistic for investigating all referent phenomena that this construct might explain or

Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Savannah, 2014

1


Adoption and Diffusion of Information Technology (SIGADIT)

predict. It is also not aligned with the recommendations proposed by change management researchers (e.g. Armenakis et al. 1993; Holt et al. 2010; Weiner 2009) regarding the consideration of the psychological dimension of organizational readiness. By critically appraising the actual conceptualizations of organizational readiness in the IS literature and by using the recommendations of recent studies in the change management field, we propose a multi-dimensional conceptualization of organizational readiness and discuss how it is likely to lead to a richer understanding of several IS phenomena. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, we introduce the concept of organizational readiness and discuss its origins and evolution in the change management literature. Second, we review and critically appraise the conceptualizations of this construct in the IS literature. Finally, we integrate our findings and propose a new conceptualization to guide future IS investigations.

Background The Concept of Organizational Readiness for Change Organizational readiness for change is a concept rooted in the change management literature (e.g., Coch & French, 1948; Lewin & Cartwright, 1951; Lewin, 1947). Early theories of organizational change viewed readiness in the form of managerial reactions for avoiding employees’ resistance toward organizational change (e.g., Coch and French 1948; Kotter and Schlesinger 1979). More recently, change management theorists have suggested a more proactive view of this construct by theorizing it as a strong precursor for success of organizational changes (e.g., Jennett et al. 2003; Kotter 1995). Since it was first introduced by change management theorists, organizational readiness has been studied in a variety of disciplines including healthcare management (e.g., Weiner et al. 2008), human resources (e.g., Eby et al. 2000), marketing (e.g., Weeks et al. 2004), and information systems (e.g., Iacovou et al. 1995). In the information systems domain, this construct has been studied in a large variety of contexts and change initiatives (e.g., adoption and implementation of organizational information systems such as ERP, EDI, and e-commerce, adoption and implementation of health initiatives and clinical information systems).

Relevance of Organizational Readiness for IS Research The ubiquitous and strategic nature of IT changes in organizations, the low rate of acceptance, and the high rate of their implementation failures have made organizational readiness an interesting topic for both IS researchers and practitioners (Iacovou et al. 1995; Jha et al. 2009; Snyder and Fields 2006). For more than two decades IS studies have used the construct of organizational readiness to explain and predict various phenomena such as organizational IS adoption (e.g., Iacovou et al. 1995), organizational IS use and institutionalization (e.g., Hadaya and Pellerin 2008), IS success (e.g., Zhu et al. 2010), and knowledge acquisition and sharing (e.g., Rusly et al. 2012). Importantly, several studies found organizational readiness to be a strong predictor of IS organizational adoption (e.g., Chwelos et al. 2001; Nikolaeva 2006) and IS success (e.g., Stratman and Roth 2002; Zhu et al. 2010). Notwithstanding the growing number of IS studies directly using or referring to this construct, a comprehensive and critical assessment of its conceptualizations in our field has not yet been undertaken. As will be shown later, our review reveals two main conceptual problems: 1) a lack of cumulative tradition (Keen 1980; Benbasat and Zmud 1999) and consensus regarding the meaning and nature of organizational readiness; and 2) a lack of alignment between the proposed conceptualizations in IS research and those found in the change management field. We posit that these problems limit our own understanding of this construct, contribute to mixed results and invalid empirical conclusions (MacKenzie et al. 2011). As a clear example of this, MacKay et al. (2004) noted: “… if these criteria (the dimensions proposed by previous studies) were to be used, then we would conclude that none of the six organizations in our study were ready for EC (E-commerce) adoption. Nonetheless, all six developed cogent websites, and even evolved them one or two generations. All six organizations were quite ready to develop websites when the opportunity to do so presented itself.” (p. 153) Next we examine the nature of organizational readiness in other disciplines. We then critically appraise the conceptualization of this construct in the extant IS literature.

2



Conceptualization of Organizational Readiness in Other Disciplines Recent reviews related to the concept of organizational readiness in the fields of change management and healthcare management (e.g., Holt et al. 2007; Weiner et al. 2008) have identified two main conceptualizations in regard to this construct, namely, a structural view and a psychological view. According to Weiner et al. (2008), studies adopting a structural view conceptualize organizational readiness in terms of a firm’s access to the structural attributes that are required for change to occur (Collins et al. 2007; Devereaux et al. 2006; Simon 1996). More precisely, under this view organizational readiness refers to one or several of the following structural attributes or factors: institutional and financial resources, technical resources and capabilities, human resources, knowledge and skills. As an alternative to the structural view, some researchers have defined the organizational readiness construct in psychological terms, emphasizing organizational members’ attitudes, beliefs, and intentions. Among those taking the psychological approach, several authors drew upon Armenakis et al. (1993), who defined readiness as the employees’ cognitive precursor to their behavior of either resisting or supporting the change effort (p.681). Although this definition was proposed for the readiness at the individual level, some studies afterwards adapted it to the collective/organizational level (e.g., Eby et al. 2000; Holt et al. 2010; Rafferty et al. 2013; Weiner 2009). For example, Holt et al. (2010) defined organizational readiness as organizational members’ “collective cognitive and emotional inclination to accept, embrace, and implement a particular change” (p.52). Weiner (2009) also defined organizational readiness as “organizational members' shared resolve to implement a change (i.e., collective commitment) and shared belief in their collective capability to do so (i.e., collective efficacy).” (p.1) It is worth noting here that the structural perspective, which highlights the importance of an organization’s capacity to successfully adopt and implement a change initiative, and the psychological perspective, which focuses on the employees’ cognitive and emotional capabilities and willingness to change, have been considered “silos” in prior research. However, researchers have recently called for a more comprehensive, yet integrative view of organizational readiness, one which would incorporate both perspectives. For instance, Weiner et al. (2008) argued that while organizations “must possess the raw potential—the expertise, the resources, the opportunity—to successfully implement an intentional organizational change. Yet, raw potential does not automatically translate into action” (p.425). Accordingly, these authors suggested that a good definition of organizational readiness should reflect the multi-dimensional nature of this construct by connoting being both “willing” and “capable” of performing the change. They used the example of collective unit preparedness in the context of military fighting units and stated that “a unit that is demoralized, but well trained and equipped, is no more ready for battle than is a unit that is gung ho but poorly trained or equipped.” (Weiner et al. 2008, p. 424) Table 1. Conceptualizations of Organizational Readiness: Two Views Characteristics Philosophical (theoretical) position

Structural view

Psychological view

Determinism

Human agency / Behavioral theory of the firm

Factors theoretically assumed as the main drivers for organizational changes

Organization structural attributes (e.g., resources, processes, structure, skills)

Organization members’ beliefs and mindsets

Organizational readiness construct reflect

Organizational capacity and acquisition of required structural factors for executing the change

Organizational members’ collective cognitive and emotional capability and willingness for executing the change

The main evaluation references

High level managers and decision makers

Organizational members affecting or being affected by the change.


3



Table 1. Conceptualizations of Organizational Readiness: Two Views Characteristics

Structural view

Psychological view

- The efficient use of human, physical, and knowledge resources and the processes employed to transform these resources into services (Collins et al. 2007)

-The cognitive precursor (state of mind) to the behaviors of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort (Eby et al. 2000)

- Capacity to implement change designed to improve performance (Devereaux et al. 2006) Examples of definitions found in the literature

- Participation of people in the telehealth change activities and existence of supportive infrastructure and sufficient resources that facilitates the change (Kerber and Buono 2005) - The level of fit between the information technology innovation and organization (Snyder-Halpern 2001)

-The extent to which individuals are cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter the status quo (Holt et al. 2007) -The extent to which organizational members are psychologically and behaviorally prepared to implement organizational change (Weiner et al. 2008) - The degree to which those involved are collectively primed, motivated, and technically capable of executing the change (Holt et al. 2010)

Conceptualization of Organizational Readiness in the IS Literature In this section, we present the results of a comprehensive review of the conceptualization of organizational readiness in the extant IS literature. We first explain the methods we adopted for selecting and reviewing the articles. We then examine how previous IS studies have conceptualized the organizational readiness construct.

Methods Webster and Watson (2002) emphasized that, for a review to be exhaustive, it should not be confined to one research methodology, one set of journals, or one specific geographic region. It should rather be comprehensive and cover all the relevant literature on a specific topic. In line with these guidelines, we conducted a search on ABI/INFORM and ISI Web of Knowledge. The list of keywords contained organizational readiness, change readiness, organizational preparedness, change preparedness, and ereadiness. No time restriction was applied. However, our search was restricted to scholarly journals and peer-reviewed English articles. We excluded study protocols, research notes, reports, front page/cover stories, commentaries, literature reviews, book reviews, editorials, conference proceedings, working papers, and dissertations. Overall, the search produced a total of 1,047 articles, including 604 and 337 articles from ABI/INFORM and ISI Web of knowledge, respectively. A backward search allowed us to identify 11 additional articles (see Figure 1). We included in our sample the articles that conceptually defined the organizational readiness construct and/or empirically measured it.

4



Figure 1. Flow Diagram The articles were screened in two consecutive rounds. First, each article was examined according to its relevance based on its title and abstract. As a result of this initial round, 65 articles were retained for fulltext review. Articles that were unavailable in university library databases or that investigated readiness at the individual level were excluded in the second round. In the end, 56 articles were included in our sample.1 As a next step, a coding scheme was developed. Our scheme included thirty-seven codes grouped under three sections: 1) general profile of the articles, 2) methodological characteristics of the study, 3) conceptualization and operationalization of the organizational readiness construct. We then assessed the reliability of the coding scheme. To do so, we conducted a pretest with 10 (20%) randomly selected articles. Two independent raters coded the articles independently and discussed and resolved disagreements in separate meetings and one final joint meeting. As shown in Table 2, the results show a fairly strong agreement rate among the two independent coders and the first author of this paper. Importantly, the sources of discrepancies did not appear to be systematic across coders. In light of these results, we felt the coding scheme showed high reliability. Table 2. Inter-rater Agreement Rates Researcher & rater #2

Researcher & rater #3

Rater#2 & rater #3

87%

82%

82%

Inter-rater agreement rate

1 The list of articles is available upon

request.


5



Findings A preliminary assessment of our sample proves interesting and, hence, deserves some attention. Our literature search revealed the first IS articles using organizational readiness were published in 1995. Figure 2 shows that a growing number of articles on this topic has appeared in IS journals over time. In fact, the number of papers published since 2010 almost doubled in comparison to the number of papers that appeared in previous years.

Figure 2. Number of studies per year As shown in Table 3, most articles in our sample are empirical in nature (93%); two-thirds (75%) are quantitative, while the remaining adopt a variety of qualitative methods. In terms of research methods, it appears that the majority of the empirical articles in our sample (38/52) used a questionnaire survey as their main data collection tool. Almost all the articles were cross-sectional, and theory testing was the main purpose in most (41/52) of the studies. Interestingly, we also found that organizational readiness was examined within various contexts (both large and small organizations, private and public sector, manufacturing and service organizations) and with various types of IT artifacts (simple and intraorganizational to complex and inter-organizational, such as ERP, e-commerce, EDI, and IOS). Table 3. Profile of the Studies (n) Article type

Empirical (52) Qualitative (13)

Conceptual (4)

Study design

Quantitative (39)

-

Method

Questionnaire survey (38), Case study (9), Qualitative survey (1), Secondary data (1), Field study (1), Interview and focus group (1), Content analysis (1)

-

Purpose of study

Theory building (8), Theory testing (41), Descriptive (1), Instrument development/validation (3)

-

Survey type

Cross-sectional (50), Secondary data (2)

-

Study Context

SME (24), Large (4), Both (11), NS (13)

-

Table 4 presents the profile of the reviewed articles with respect to the conceptualization and operationalization of the organizational readiness construct. As shown in this table, more than 40% of the articles did not provide any conceptual definition for this construct. Also, more than half of the articles

6



did not provide any operational definition or psychometric properties for the construct. Lack of explicitly stated conceptual or operational definitions, in the first place, hampers the understanding of the nature of this construct in the reviewed studies. Other researchers have argued that the absence of well-articulated conceptual definitions is the main cause for constructs’ conceptual clarity issues in a field of research (e.g., Barki 2008; Suddaby 2010). Suddaby (2010) states that failing to present well-articulated constructs limits the communication among the scholars in a research stream and restricts building a cumulative tradition in that stream of research. Table 4. Conceptualization of Organizational Readiness In IS (n) Conceptual definition Operational definition Time frame for assessing organizational readiness construct Main respondents Role of organizational readiness in nomological network Conceptual perspective

Yes (35) Yes (7)

No (21) No (28)

-

Past/Retrospective (24), Present/Ongoing (2), Future/Prospective (6), Multiple (10), Not specified (10) Change decision makers (44), Change implementers (1), change targets (2), Not specified (5) Independent variable (48), Dependent variable (1), Moderator (1), Mediator/intervening (1), Not applicable (1)

Structural (53), Psychological (2), Both (1)

Our review also reveals a lack of consensus among the proposed conceptualizations and dimensions for this construct. In particular, the variety of proposed dimensions and conceptualizations in addition to the lack of effort to synthesize and integrate them have led to a rather heterogeneous and disconcerted body of literature and have made the nature of this construct fuzzy and ambiguous. Table 3 summarizes the main conceptual problems (and their consequences) that can be found in the IS research with respect to the use of the organizational readiness construct.


7



Figure 3. Summary of the Observed Conceptual Problems in IS Literature As shown in Table 5, we identified six categories of factors (or dimensions) that have been associated with the organizational readiness construct. Each of these is briefly described in the following paragraphs. Financial readiness: The resource-intensive nature of IT adoption and implementation in addition to the resource sensitive nature of organizations highlights the importance of financial resource availability as a key dimension of organizational readiness in previous IS studies (Iacovou et al. 1995). Put simply, financial readiness refers to “financial resources available to pay for installation costs, implementation of any subsequent enhancements, and ongoing expenses during usage (e.g., communication charges, usage fees, etc.)” (Iacovou et al. 1995, p.469). Technological readiness: Technological readiness refers to an organization’s technological capacity and capability for adopting and implementing the focal IT (Iacovou et al. 1995). More specifically, it refers to the extent to which an organization has the required technological resources and infrastructure to successfully adopt and implement the focal IT (Chwelos et al. 2001). It also refers to the level of knowledge and expertise that the organization requires for adoption (Kim and Garrison 2010; Lee and Shim 2007). IT sophistication (Paré and Raymond 1991) was considered as a relevant proxy for measuring firms’ technological readiness in many of the reviewed articles (e.g., Iacovou et al. 1995; Lee and Cheung 2004). Staff (human resource) readiness: Along with the financial and technological readiness, several studies highlight the importance of having enough knowledgeable and skilled staff (both IT and non-IT) to enable a successful technological adoption and implementation (Mehrtens et al. 2001; Molla and Licker 2005). Staff readiness deals primarily with whether the organization has enough human resources and whether employees have the required skills and knowledge (Stratman and Roth 2002). Processes and operations readiness: An inseparable part of any technological change is the accompanying changes it brings to the organization’s operations and processes. Processes and operations

8



readiness reflects the level of compatibility and fit between the existing practices and processes and those required for the new technology (e.g. ERP, clinical information systems) (Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson 2006; Zhu et al. 2010). Consequently, low readiness in this dimension requires organization-wide process redesign projects before the implementation activities. Cultural readiness: Having well-communicated shared values and positive culture across an organization towards the adoption of the focal technology is another noticeable dimension of organizational readiness that can be found in prior IS studies (Guha et al. 1997; Motwani et al. 2002, 2005). O’Reilly (1989) suggests that some organizational values, such as risk taking, openness, shared vision, respect and trust, are promoting cultural readiness for change, while others, such as risk avoidance, ambivalence, and excessive competition, are discouraging change readiness and activities. Previous studies suggest that a clear and well-communicated vision and goals, a positive climate management and leadership championing help to promote cultural readiness in an organization (Guha et al. 1997; Motwani et al. 2002, 2005). Business readiness: Last, the compatibility and fit between the nature of business with the new system or IT is another noticeable dimension that characterizes firms’ readiness to adopt the focal IT (Molla and Licker 2005; Nikolaeva 2006). For example, studying e-commerce adoption in the retail industry, Nikolaeva (2006) argued that retailers whose products fit better with the online environment are readier and more likely to adopt e-commerce (i.e. open an online store).


9



Table 5. Dimensions of Organizational Readiness Extracted from the Previous IS Literature Dimension

Financial readiness

Technological readiness

Staff readiness

Processes and operations readiness

Description

Sample items from previous research

Reflects financial resources and firm capital required for executing the IT change.

Reflects firm’s technological capacity and capability for executing the IT change.

Reflects whether organization acquires the required skilled and knowledgeable staff for executing the IT change.

Reflects the level of compatibility and fit between the existing practices and processes and those required for the new IT change.

Number of studies (n)

Our organization has the financial resources to adopt the E-commerce (Grandon and Pearson 2004) Our organization has the financial resources to implement and support E-commerce (Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson 2006) In the context of your organizations overall information systems budget, how significant would be the cost of developing and implementing this system be? (Chwelos et al. 2001) Our firm has the technical resources to adopt Ecommerce (Grandon and Pearson 2004) Our organization is well computerized with LAN and WAN (Molla and Licker 2005) We have high bandwidth connectivity to the Internet (Molla and Licker 2005) We have sufficient experience with network based applications (Molla and Licker 2005) We have the technical knowledge and skills to implement RFID (Lee and Shim 2007) Our employees have enough IT skills (to adopt and use internet banking) (Xu et al. 2009) Most of our employees are computer literate and proficient (Molla and Licker 2005) Our organization has enough skilled personnel to implement E-commerce (Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson 2006) Management actively works to alleviate employee concerns of our ERP change (Stratman and Roth 2002) A group for answering the employees’ concerns regarding the ERP change is available (Stratman and Roth 2002) Roles of employees under the ERP change are clarified (Stratman and Roth 2002) E-commerce is compatible with our preferred work practices (Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson 2006)

Iacovou et al. (1995) 37

Chwelos et al. (1995)

Iacovou et al. (1995) Chwelos et al. (1995) 40

20

Molla (2005)

and

Licker

Molla (2005)

and

Licker

Stratman (2002)

and

Roth

Mehrtens et al. (2001)

7

E-commerce is compatible with our existing work practices (Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson 2006)


Key References

Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson (2006) Zhu et al. (2010)

10


Table 5. Dimensions of Organizational Readiness Extracted from the Previous IS Literature Dimension

Description

Sample items from previous research

Cultural readiness

Reflects the extent of having wellcommunicated shared values and positive culture across the organization towards the adoption of focal IT

Business readiness

Reflects the level of compatibility and consistency of IT change and firms’ nature of business

Number of studies (n)

Our business processes that can be automated have already been automated (Molla et al. 2010) Evaluating and prioritizing which shared business processes should be automated is undertaken (Chong et al. 2009) Appropriate business process reengineering was conducted before the ERP implementation (Zhu et al. 2010) Our people are open and trusting with one another (Molla and Licker 2005) Communication is very open in our organization (Molla and Licker 2005) Our organization exhibits a culture of enterprise-wide information sharing (Molla and Licker 2005) Failure can be tolerated in our organization (Molla and Licker 2005) E-commerce is compatible with the culture of our organization (Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson 2006) Our products are compatible with E-commerce (Nikolaeva 2006) E-commerce is compatible with our business needs and values (Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson 2006)

Guha et al. (1997) 9

Motwani et al. (2002) Motwani et al. (2005)

8

Our business recognizes the opportunities and threats enabled by E-Commerce (Molla and Licker 2005)


Key References

11

Nikolaeva (2006)



We also examined the reviewed articles regarding their conceptual view (i.e., whether they took a structural or psychological view for conceptualizing organizational readiness). Our results, as shown in Table 4, suggest that besides the inconsistencies among the proposed conceptualizations, the previous IS literature has been highly influenced by the structural view of organizational readiness but for the most part has overlooked the psychological perspective. Indeed, only three out the 56 articles in our sample conceptualized organizational readiness from a psychological viewpoint.

Towards an Integrative View of Organizational Readiness Having reviewed the conceptualization of organizational readiness in both the IS and change management literatures, we observed that setting aside the inconsistencies among the previous conceptualizations in IS, the articles, expect for a few, are merely reflecting on the structural attributes of this construct. This is while, as shown earlier, recent change management studies suggest that a good conceptualization of this construct should reflect both structural and psychological attributes (Weiner 2009, Holt et al. 2010). Addressing the psychological dimension of organizational readiness has several implications for IS research and practice. First, it is likely to improve the deterministic and simplistic nature of our traditional conceptualizations of this construct, which have led to conceptual confusion between this construct and other constructs, such as organizational capacity or adoption feasibility assessment. In particular, it contributes to distinguishing the concept of organizational readiness from what is traditionally known as feasibility assessment in the nature of organizational IT changes by taking people’s cognitive and emotional precursors to their decisions and behavior into account. In this line of thought, Weiner et al. (2008) suggest that organizational readiness for change should be distinguished both “conceptually and linguistically” from other constructs such as organizational capacity and feasibility assessments. Second, such a perspective offers alternative explanations for some of mixed empirical findings in previous IS research (e.g., Grandon and Pearson 2004; Iacovou et al. 1995). Based on these observations, applying the results of our review and recommendations proposed by change management researchers, we suggest to re-conceptualize the construct of organizational readiness for IT-based changes and define it as a multi-dimensional construct that entails two overarching highlevel dimensions: structural and psychological. We view structural readiness as the organization’s capacity and acquisition of structural attributes required for executing the IT change. By synthesizing the factors proposed in the previous IS literature we suggest six stable dimensions for structural readiness including financial readiness, technological readiness, staff readiness, process and practice readiness, cultural readiness, and business readiness. Developing upon the existing definitions proposed in the change management literature, we also conceive psychological readiness as the relevant stakeholders’ collective state of mind that shapes their behaviors in supporting or resisting IT change. Relevant stakeholders are those who affect or are being affected by the IT change. They could differ from one study to another according to the context and the focal phenomenon of study. For example, stakeholders could refer to IT adoption decision makers in the context of a top-down authority-based IT adoption in a large organization, or the term could refer to employees and those involved in the IT implementation activities in the context of an IT change implementation study in a small organization. Prior change management literature suggests three main collective shared beliefs that shape psychological readiness at the organizational level: collective efficacy, commitment, and motivation (Holt et al. 2010; Lehman et al. 2002; Weiner 2009). Collective efficacy refers to the change stakeholders’ collective and “shared belief in their conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to implement the change successfully” (Holt et al. 2010). Collective commitment refers to change stakeholders’ collective and “shared resolve to pursue courses of action that will lead to successful change implementation” (Holt et al. 2010). Motivation is another important psychological attribute that is highlighted in the previous literature (Lehman et al. 2002; Vroom 1964; Weiner et al. 2008). Last, collective motivation is also conceived as a sub-dimension of psychological readiness at the organizational level. As the above definitions show, these collective beliefs determine how change stakeholders feel the change targets can do together rather than what each individual feels s/he is capable of doing (Holt et al. 2010). The extant literature also suggests that while psychological readiness can be affected by the level of


12


organizations’ structural readiness, it is different in nature (Weiner 2009). Figure 4 synthesizes the conceptualization proposed here.

Figure 4- Proposed Conceptualization of Organizational Readiness in IS Research

Conclusion Benbasat and Zmud (1999) state that “being technophiles at heart, IS researchers would much rather invent than adopt! But without common tools and a shared language, it becomes difficult to evolve streams of research that build rich conceptualizations and understandings of the phenomena populating the IS domain” (p.6). Keeping in mind the previous researchers’ recommendations, such as the statement above, and considering the importance of building a cumulative tradition in our theories and concepts, this article aims to clarify the conceptualization of the organizational readiness construct in our discipline. More precisely, it proposes a multi-dimensional conceptualization of this construct based on a comprehensive review and critical appraisal of prior relevant IS studies and the recommendations of theorists in the change management discipline. The proposed conceptualization synthesized in Figure 4 is likely to deepen and broaden our understanding of the organizational readiness construct and its role in the advancement of IS knowledge. In our viewpoint, it offers a more fine-grained representation of the overarching dimensions of this construct. Obviously, the new conceptualization presented here will require empirical validation. In this regard, as a next step we propose to examine the face validity of the proposed conceptualization through a series of in-depth interviews with IT-based change management experts.


13



References Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., and Mossholder, K. W. 1993. “Creating Readiness for Organizational Change,” Human relations (46:6), pp. 681–703. Barki, H. 2008. “Thar’s Gold in Them Thar Constructs,” ACM SIGMIS Database (39:3), pp. 9–20. Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. 1999. “Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), pp. 3–16. Chong, A. Y.-L., Ooi, K.-B., Lin, B., and Raman, M. 2009. “Factors Affecting the Adoption Level of CCommerce: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Computer Information Systems (50:2), p. 13. Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I., and Dexter, A. S. 2001. “Research Report: Empirical Test of an EDI Adoption model,” Information Systems Research (12:3), pp. 304–321. Coch, L., and French, J. R. P. 1948. “Overcoming Resistance to Change,” Human relations (1), pp.512533 Collins, C., Phields, M. E., and Duncan, T. 2007. “An Agency Capacity Model to Facilitate Implementation of Evidence-Based Behavioral Interventions by Community-Based Organizations,” Journal of Public Health Management and Practice (13), pp. S16–S23. Devereaux, M. W., Drynan, A. K., Lowry, S., MacLennan, D., Figdor, M., Fancott, C., and Sinclair, L. 2006. “Evaluating Organizational Readiness for Change: A Preliminary Mixed-Model Assessment of an Interprofessional Rehabilitation Hospital,” Healthcare quarterly (Toronto, Ont.) (9:4), pp. 66–74. Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E., and Gaby, S. H. 2000. “Perceptions of Organizational Readiness for Change: Factors Related to Employees’ Reactions to the Implementation of TeamBased Selling,” Human relations (53:3), pp. 419–442. Grandon, E. E., and Pearson, J. M. 2004. “Electronic Commerce Adoption: An Empirical Study of Small and Medium US Businesses,” Information & management (42:1), pp. 197–216. Guha, S., Grover, V., Kettinger, W. J., and Teng, J. T. 1997. “Business Process Change and Organizational Performance: Exploring an Antecedent Model,” Process Think: Winning Perspectives for Business Change in the Information Age , p. 115. Hadaya, P., and Pellerin, R. 2008. “Determinants of Manufacturing Firms’ Intent to Use Web Based Systems to Share Inventory Information With Their Key Suppliers,” International Journal of eCollaboration (IJeC) (4:2), pp. 29–54. Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., and Feild, H. S. 2007. “Toward a Comprehensive Definition of Readiness for Change: A Review of Research and Instrumentation,” Research in Organizational Change and Development (16), pp.289-336. Holt, D. T., Helfrich, C. D., Hall, C. G., and Weiner, B. J. 2010. “Are You Ready? How Health Professionals can Comprehensively Conceptualize Readiness for Change,” Journal of general internal medicine (25), pp. 50–55. Iacovou, C., Benbasat, I., and Dexter, A. S. 1995. “Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organizations: Adoption and Impact of Technology,” MIS Quarterly (19:4), pp. 465–486. Jha, A. K., DesRoches, C. M., Campbell, E. G., Donelan, K., Rao, S. R., Ferris, T. G., Shields, A., Rosenbaum, S., and Blumenthal, D. 2009. “Use of Electronic Health Records in US Hospitals,” New England Journal of Medicine (360:16), pp. 1628–1638. Keen, P. G. W. 1980. “MIS Research: Reference Disciplines and a Cumulative Tradition,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information Systems, E. R. McLean (ed.), pp. 9–18. Kerber, K., and Buono, A. F. 2005. “Rethinking Organizational Change: Reframing the Challenge of Change Management,” Organization Development Journal (23:3), pp.23-38. Kim, S., and Garrison, G. 2010. “Understanding Users’ Behaviors Regarding Supply Chain Technology: Determinants Impacting the Adoption and Implementation of RFID Technology in South Korea” International Journal of Information Management (30:5), pp. 388–398. Kotter, J. P. 1995. “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” Harvard Business Review (73:2), pp. 59–67. Kotter, J. P., and Schlesinger, L. A. 1979. "Choosing Strategies for Change", Harvard Business Review (57:2), pp. 106-14. Lee, C.-P., and Shim, J. P. 2007. “An exploratory study of radio frequency identification (RFID) adoption in the healthcare industry,” European Journal of Information Systems (16:6), pp. 712–724.

14



Lee, M. K. O., and Cheung, C. M. K. 2004. “Internet Retailing Adoption by Small-to-Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs): A Multiple-Case Study,” Information Systems Frontiers (6:4), pp. 385–397. Lehman, W. E., Greener, J. M., and Simpson, D. D. 2002. “Assessing Organizational Readiness for Change,” Journal of substance abuse treatment (22:4), pp. 197–209. Lewin, K. 1947. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics II. Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research,” Human relations (1:2), pp. 143–153. Lewin, K., and Cartwright, D. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, London, pp.1-346. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., and Podsakoff, N. P. 2011. “Construct Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research: Integrating New and Existing Techniques,” MIS Quarterly (35:2), pp. 293–334. Mehrtens, J., Cragg, P. B., and Mills, A. M. 2001. “A Model Of Internet Adoption by SMEs,” Information & Management (39:3), pp. 165–176. Molla, A., and Licker, P. S. 2005. “E-commerce Adoption in Developing Countries: A Model and Instrument,” Information & Management (42:6), pp. 877–899. Molla, A., and Licker, P. S. 2005. “Perceived E-readiness Factors in E-commerce Adoption: An Empirical Investigation in a Developing Country,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce (10:1), pp. 83–110. Molla, A., Peszynski, K., and Pittayachawan, S. 2010. “The Use of E-Business in Agribusiness: Investigating the Influence of E-Readiness and OTE Factors,” Journal of Global Information Technology Management (13:1), pp. 56–78. Motwani, J., Mirchandani, D., Madan, M., and Gunasekaran, A. 2002. “Successful Implementation of ERP Projects: Evidence from Two Case Studies,” International Journal of Production Economics (75:1), pp. 83–96. Motwani, J., Subramanian, R., and Gopalakrishna, P. 2005. “Critical Factors for Successful ERP Implementation: Exploratory Findings from Four Case Studies,” Computers in Industry (56:6), pp. 529–544. Nikolaeva, R. 2006. “E-commerce Adoption in the Retail Sector: Empirical Insights,” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management (34:4/5), pp. 369–387. O’Reilly, C. 1989. “Corporations, Culture, and Commitment: Motivation and Social Control in Organizations,” California Management Review (31:4), pp. 9–25. Paré, G., and Raymond, L. 1991. “Measurement of Information Technology Sophistication in SMEs,” in Proceedings of Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Nineteenth Annual Conference, pp. 90–101. Paré, G., Sicotte, C., Poba-Nzaou, P., and Balouzakis, G. 2011. “Clinicians’ Perceptions of Organizational Readiness for Change in the Context of Clinical Information System Projects: Insights from Two Cross-Sectional Surveys,” Implementation Science (6:15), pp. 1–15. Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., and Armenakis, A. A. 2013. “Change Readiness A Multilevel Review,” Journal of Management (39:1), pp. 110–135. Rusly, F. H., Corner, J. L., and Sun, P. 2012. “Positioning Change Readiness in Knowledge Management Research,” Journal of Knowledge Management (16:2), pp. 329–355. Simon, N. J. 1996. “Meeting the Challenge of Change: The Issue of Readiness,” Competitive Intelligence Review (7:2), pp. 86–88. Snyder, R. A., and Fields, W. L. 2006. “Measuring Hospital Readiness for Information Technology (IT) Innovation: A Multisite Study of the Organizational Information Technology Innovation Readiness Scale,” Journal of Nursing Measurement (14:1), pp. 45–55. Snyder-Halpern, R. 2001. “Indicators of Organizational Readiness for Clinical Information Technology/Systems Innovation: A Delphi Study,” International Journal of Medical Informatics (63:3), pp. 179–204. Stratman, J. K., and Roth, A. V. 2002. “Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Competence Constructs: Two- Stage Multi-Item Scale Development and Validation*,” Decision Sciences (33:4), pp. 601–628. Suddaby, R. 2010. “Editor’s Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization” Academy of Management Review (35:3), pp. 346–357. Sutanonpaiboon, J., and Pearson, A. M. 2006. “E-commerce Adoption: Perceptions of Managers/Owners of Small-and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) in Thailand,” Journal of Internet Commerce (5:3), pp. 53–82. Vroom, V. H. 1964. “Work and Motivation,” New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1964.


15



Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. 2002. “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review,” MIS Quarterly (26:2). Weeks, W. A., Roberts, J., Chonko, L. B., and Jones, E. 2004. “Organizational Readiness for Change, Individual Fear of Change, and Sales Manager Performance: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of personal selling and sales management (24:1), pp. 7–17. Weiner, B. J. 2009. “A Theory of Organizational Readiness for Change,” Implementation Science (4:1), p. 67. Weiner, B. J., Amick, H., and Lee, S. Y. D. 2008. “Review: Conceptualization and Measurement of Organizational Readiness for Change A Review of the Literature in Health Services Research and Other Fields,” Medical Care Research and Review (65:4), pp. 379–436. Xu, B., Shao, B., Lin, Z., and Shi, Y. 2009. “Enterprise adoption of Internet Banking in China-The enterprise adoption of Internet banking in China is low compared to developed countries.,” Journal of Global Information Technology Management (12:3), p. 7. Zhu, Y., Li, Y., Wang, W., and Chen, J. 2010. “What Leads to Post-Implementation Success of ERP? An Empirical Study of the Chinese Retail Industry,” International Journal of Information Management (30:3), pp. 265–276.

16
