This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]

On: 08 January 2015, At: 01:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Change Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjcm20

Ready for a Change? A Longitudinal

Study of Antecedents, Consequences
and Contingencies of Readiness for
Change
a a a
Frank Drzensky , Nikolai Egold & Rolf van Dick
a
Goethe University , Frankfurt/Main , Germany
Published online: 08 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Frank Drzensky , Nikolai Egold & Rolf van Dick (2012) Ready for a Change?
A Longitudinal Study of Antecedents, Consequences and Contingencies of Readiness for Change,
Journal of Change Management, 12:1, 95-111, DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2011.652377

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.652377

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Change Management
Vol. 12, No. 1, 95– 111, March 2012

Ready for a Change? A Longitudinal

Study of Antecedents, Consequences and
Contingencies of Readiness for Change
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

FRANK DRZENSKY, NIKOLAI EGOLD & ROLF VAN DICK

Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany

ABSTRACT This article examines the role of organizational identification as an antecedent of

readiness for change utilizing a social identity perspective. A study is presented that uses
longitudinal data from a survey of employee attitudes conducted in a German organization that
went through a change process (N ¼ 166). In line with the hypotheses, readiness for change
mediates the relationship between organizational identification and a positive evaluation of the
change outcomes one year later. Perceived culture of change and coping with change moderate
the relationship between organizational identification and readiness for change: a positive
culture of change and more resources for coping strengthen the positive relationship between
organizational identification and readiness for organizational change.

KEY WORDS : Organizational change, organizational identification, readiness for change, culture of
change, coping with change

Introduction
In times of globalization and competitive pressure, the capability of organizations
to develop and change is becoming more and more important. The competence to
handle change efficiently is a key variable for long-term organizational success.
However, surveys show that only 40% of all change projects fully achieve their
aims (IBM Global Business Services, 2009; for a review of post acquisition per-
formance see King et al., 2004). Failure is often attributed to so-called soft factors
(IBM Global Business Services, 2009) such as employee resistance (see Danis-
man, 2010). Lewin (1947) suggested three necessary stages for a successful

Correspondence Address: Frank Drzensky, Department of Management and Microeconomics, Goethe Universi-
tät Frankfurt am Main, Grüneburgplatz 1, 60323 Frankfurt, Germany. Email: drzensky@econ.uni-frankfurt.de

1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/12/010095–17 # 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.652377
 96 F. Drzensky et al.
change process: ‘unfreezing (if necessary) the present level L1, moving to the new
level L2, and freezing group life on the new level’ (p. 35). In line with this concept,
a key issue for successful change management is how change agents can unfreeze
the current state or in other words, how employees’ readiness for change can be
increased.
In previous change research, attitudes such as satisfaction or turnover intentions
have been related to readiness for change (cf. Holt et al., 2007) and over the past
10 years there has been an emergent literature on the role of organizational identi-
fication (OI) for change processes. Existing studies which focus on OI, however,
have been mostly concerned with intergroup processes in the context of mergers
and acquisitions (M&As) (Terry, 2001; Terry et al., 2001; van Knippenberg and
van Leeuwen, 2001; van Knippenberg et al., 2002; van Dick et al., 2004, 2006)
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

and not on change in general.

This article provides a social identity analysis in order to explore readiness for
change and its consequences beyond the context of M&As. The key issue is how
and under which conditions OI is related to readiness for change and to positive
evaluations of this change among the people affected. The article begins with a
brief introduction of the key concepts and discusses how these findings can
assist change agents in managing successful change processes.

The Social Identity Approach

The social identity approach is a psychological intergroup framework that combines
two related theories. Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) characterizes
identification as the bond between the self and one’s group memberships. Self-cat-
egorization theory (Turner, 1985) specifies the conditions under which an individ-
ual’s self-categorization as a group member becomes psychologically salient. The
key assumption of social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) is that individuals
have a need to maintain and develop positive self-esteem. In addition to their per-
sonal identity, individuals can derive self-esteem by their membership in (positively
evaluated) social groups (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). However, social identity pro-
cesses do not only provide a source for self-enhancement (Hogg, 2001). Separating
a continuous social environment into distinct categories and self-categorization into
particular groups helps individuals to reduce complexity and hence to orient in the
environment. Thus, social identity processes are also important for the reduction of
uncertainty (Hogg, 2000; Hogg and Terry, 2000).
Identification can refer to several foci such as career, team or the organization as
a whole (van Dick, 2001; Riketta and van Dick, 2005).
This article focuses on OI. An organization’s identity is defined as the central
and enduring characteristics that distinguish it from other organizations (Albert
& Whetten, 1985). Those characteristics can refer to diverse aspects such as an
organizatiońs culture, its history or its position in the market. Employees’ ‘organ-
izational identification is the degree to which a member defines him- or herself by
the same attributes that he or she believes define the organization’ (Dutton et al.,
1994, p. 239). According to Dutton et al. (1994), ‘organizational identification
aligns individual interests and behaviors with interests and behaviors that
benefit the organization’ (p. 256).
 Ready for a Change? 97
Organizational Identification and Readiness for Change
Armenakis et al. (1993) argue that ‘readiness, which is similar to Lewin’s (1951)
concept of unfreezing, is reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes,
and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organiz-
ation’s capacity to successfully implement those changes’ (p. 681). According to
Armenakis et al. (1993), readiness for change is primarily created by a message
incorporating two aspects: ‘(a) the need for change . . . and, (b) the individual
and collective efficacy (i.e., the perceived ability to change) of parties affected
by the change effort’ (p. 684). The authors consider readiness for change as one
of the most important constructs for assessing employee reactions to change,
because it determines whether employees support the change project or not, and
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

so interpret readiness for change as the opposite of resistance to change. The

next paragraph gives a short review of findings regarding the relationship
between OI and readiness for change.
Following Dutton et al. (1994), one should expect that high OI would advance
employees’ readiness for change (provided that the change project is perceived to
benefit the organization). Additionally, ‘identification increases worker accep-
tance of change . . . since employees are more likely to anticipate resource
exchanges under conditions of high identification, the short-term losses associated
with organizational change may be made more tolerable by future anticipated
benefits’ (Rousseau, 1998, p. 228). Studying a restructuring of a large Australian
government organization, Jetten et al. (2002) indeed found that high OI is related
to less negative feelings towards the upcoming restructure. In addition, negative
feelings towards the change (measured before the change) predicted team per-
formance after the change.
In contrast to those perspectives, the literature also suggests possible downsides
of strong OI in organizational change processes. Ellemers (2003), for instance,
found that upcoming organizational change is more likely perceived as a threat
to those employees who are highly identified with the organization. Importantly,
this identity threat translated into employee resistance to change. In line with Elle-
mers (2003), van Dijk and van Dick (2009) found that employees respond to this
identity-related threat by using identity-enhancement strategies (or even direct
resistance).
This short review shows that the role of OI in organizational change processes is
complex. On the one hand, OI induces workers to focus on (future) benefits for the
organization. OI, on the other hand, induces workers to focus on the organization’s
current (or previous) identity. Whether OI drives or buffers organizational change
processes seems thus to be context dependent.
Consequently, before developing the hypotheses, the context of the studied case
is presented. Data were collected using two employee opinion surveys in a
German university that changed its legal form. The change took place between
the two surveys which were conducted one year apart. The aims of the change
process were to achieve higher autonomy from the state government and to
attract more private funding. Employees of all groups (researchers, administrative
staff and students) were concerned about a strong influence of private and business
institutions on research and teaching. Because public– private partnerships are not
 98 F. Drzensky et al.
very common in German university funding, the change was perceived as a highly
political issue. Groups of employees and students joined together to form a strong
opposition to this change project. Because better funding is interpreted here as
being beneficial for the organization, and following Dutton et al. (1994) and Rous-
seau (1998), it is expected that the highly identified employees, in particular,
would support the current change project more strongly. According to social iden-
tity theory, highly identified employees may derive a substantial amount of their
self-esteem from their employment in the university. For those people, supporting
the change should be an adequate strategy for enhancing their self-esteem. To
assess effects of readiness for change, employees were asked in the second
survey to evaluate the benefits of the previous change.
It is hypothesized:
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

H1: OI is positively related to readiness for change.

H2: Readiness for change is positively related to the perceived benefits of the change
process.

Taking H1 and H2 together, an indirect effect of OI on the perceived benefits of

the change process is expected:

H3: The relationship between OI and the perceived benefits of the change process is
completely mediated by the readiness for change.

Complete mediation means that the relationship between OI and perceived

benefits (measured one year after the assessment of readiness for change) is com-
pletely accounted for by a higher readiness for change.

Interactions: Perceived Culture of Change and Coping with Change

The following focuses on two contextual factors, which are assumed to influence
the relationship between OI and readiness for change. Although only one single
change process is studied, examining differences in employees’ perceptions of
that change provides the opportunity to evaluate the influence of context factors
as perceived by the individuals.
For successfully transforming an organization, change should be a component
of the organization’s culture (Kotter, 1995). It is assumed here that a culture of
change will affect current change processes directly and via the interaction with
OI. Identification comprises the process (or the status) of the internalization of
organizational identity among employees (van Dick, 2001; van Dick, 2004).
This implies that identity is a force operating in a direction defined by the
context of organizational identity. Along these lines, Ellemers (2003) demon-
strated that identification can even lead to less acceptance of change if the
change process is at odds with the culture of the organization. This article proposes
that OI will strengthen readiness for change, particularly if change is a significant
element of the perceived identity of the organization or of the organization’s
culture, respectively. Following this line of reasoning, a moderation effect is
hypothesized here. A ‘moderator is a . . . variable that affects the direction and/
 Ready for a Change? 99
or strength of the relation between an independent or predictor variable and a
dependent or criterion variable’ (Baron and Kenny, 1986, p. 1174).

H4: The relationship between OI and readiness for change is moderated by the
perceived culture of change. The relationship is stronger if the perceived
culture of change is high.

Coping with change is an important construct in organizational change research.

The ability to cope with job change is positively correlated with readiness for organ-
izational change, participation in job redesign activities and employees’ perceived
contribution to the change process (Cunningham et al., 2002; for a description of
coping processes during organization change, see Terry et al., 1996). Armenakis
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

et al. (1993) refer to individual and collective efficacy as one of two conditions
(in addition to the need for change) for creating readiness for change. Lewin
(1958) postulated two ways to change quasi-stationary equilibria: ‘adding forces
in the desired direction or diminishing the opposing forces’ (p. 209). Lewin rec-
ommends starting with eliminating the negative forces and suggested that the posi-
tive forces would follow suit automatically. Although the change of the university’s
legal form was first of all a change on the organizational level, in many cases the
process also influenced employees’ daily work. In addition to the aim of attracting
more private funding, the change was associated with a higher degree of autonomy
for the whole organization. As a consequence, the university was authorized to
appoint professors and to recruit students more independently of state regulations
than before the change. To some degree, this autonomy was reflected in more auton-
omous and less bureaucratic work settings. In addition, employees had to intensify
their engagement in applications for private funding and in quality management pro-
cesses. Taken together, it is proposed here that coping with change will influence the
relationship between OI and readiness for change. It is assumed that identification
will have a smaller effect on readiness for change when employees’ ability to
cope is low. Therefore:

H5: The relationship between OI and readiness for change is moderated by coping
with change. This relationship is stronger when the level of coping with change
is high.

The model and hypotheses are presented in Figure 1.

Methods
Participants
The total workforce of approximately 3500 employees from central administration
and academic departments was invited to participate in a survey across two waves.
The first wave was conducted in September and November 2007 (t1), and the
second wave was conducted in September and November 2008 (t2). The change
took place between these two waves around January 2008. Thus, the surveys
provide longitudinal data measured before and after the change process. In
 100 F. Drzensky et al.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

Figure 1. An organizational identity model of organizational change. Note: Hypothesis 3 assumes

the relationship between organizational identification and perceived benefits to be mediated by
readiness for change.

total, 710 and 613 questionnaires, respectively, were returned in the two surveys
with 166 employees participating in both surveys. The average age of the 166
employees in the longitudinal data set was 39.80 years (SD ¼ 10.55). Of the
employees, 57% were female, 46% were temporarily employed and 15% were
in a supervisory position. Mean tenure was 7.58 years (SD ¼ 8.37).

Measures
OI at t1 was measured using Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) six-item scale (e.g.
‘When someone praises the [university’s name], it feels like a personal compli-
ment’; ‘I consider achievements of [university’s name] as personal achievements’;
a ¼ .89). Identical items were used to measure OI at t2 (a ¼ .90). Perceived
culture of change was assessed at t1 with three items developed for the purpose
of this study (‘In our university, tradition is more important than change’; ‘Gen-
erally we agree that things, which have always worked, do not need to be
changed’; ‘In our university, change is more likely to mean risk than prospects’;
a ¼ .76). Coping with change at t1 was measured using a two-item scale devel-
oped for the purpose of this study (‘I am confident that I am able to cope with
the change without problems’; ‘Even after the change has been implemented
for some time I will feel stressed’; r ¼ .62). A seven-item scale was developed
for measuring readiness for change at t1 (sample items: ‘This change is necessary
for the development of the [university’s name]’; ‘This change is necessary for the
[university’s name] survival in the competition’; a ¼ .92). Perceived benefits
were assessed at t2 with a 10-item scale (e.g. ‘Please estimate whether job security
decreased, increased, or did not change at all as a result of this change]’; ‘Please
estimate whether autonomy decreased, increased, or did not change at all as a
result of this change’; a ¼ .80).
In order to measure perceived culture of change, coping with change, perceived
benefits and readiness for change in the context of an university and the ‘political’
content of these change process appropriately, it was decided to construct
 Ready for a Change? 101
specific items, instead of using an existing readiness for change scale such as
Holt et al. (2007). Response format for OI, perceived culture of change,
coping with change und readiness for change was a five-point scale with the
endpoints ‘do not agree at all’ and ‘completely agree’. The response format for
perceived benefits was a five-point scale, with the endpoints ‘increase’ and
‘decrease’.

Results
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were first conducted to confirm that items that
were measured at the same time indeed are distinguishable constructs. First, all
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

items of coping with change, perceived culture of change and readiness for
change were assumed to represent a single latent factor (x2 ¼ 319.95, df ¼ 51,
CFI ¼ .89, RMSEA ¼ .12), the second model assumed the hypothesized three
correlated latent factors representing the underlying dimensions (x2 ¼ 145.48,
df ¼ 48, CFI ¼ .96, RMSEA ¼ .07). Fit indicators showed that the latter model
fit the data reasonably well and significantly better (Dx2 ¼ 174.47, df ¼ 3, p ,
.01) than the unidimensional model. Finally, alternative models with two and,
respectively, one latent factor were tested. The closest fitting model with all
items of perceived readiness for change and perceived culture of change
loading together on one latent factor and the items of coping with change on
the second factor fit the data less well (x2 ¼ 247.06, df ¼ 50, CFI ¼ .92,
RMSEA ¼ .10), and significantly worse (Dx2 ¼ 101.58, df ¼ 2, p , .01) than
the proposed model with three latent factors.
Table 1 provides an overview of variable means, standard deviations, reliability
coefficients and intercorrelations. Internal consistency is satisfactory for coping
with change (r ¼ .62) – given that the scale comprises two items only. All
remaining scales demonstrated good internal consistency (a ¼ .76 to .92).
Because of the relatively low response rates, we tested for mean differences
between the longitudinal sample and the cross-sectional samples for all variables

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients and scale intercorrelations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Age 39.80 10.55 –

2. Gendera – – .02 –
3. Organizational
identification t1 2.60 .96 .06 .18∗ (.89)
4. Readiness for change 2.67 .95 .02 .10 .49∗∗ (.92)
∗∗
5. Perceived benefits 2.92 .31 -.20 .15 .24∗∗ .44∗∗ (.80)
6. Perceived culture of
change 3.42 .84 -.04 .11 .19 .47∗∗ .26∗ (.76)
7. Coping with change 4.02 .88 -.15 .11 .17 .63∗∗ .28∗ .43∗∗ (.62b)
8. Organizational
identification t2 2.56 .94 .09 .10 .61∗∗ .53∗∗ .33∗∗ .20 .09 (.90)

Note. Reliability coefficients are in parentheses and pictured in the diagonal; n ¼ 166. a1, female; 2, male. b
Correlation coefficient; all variables except for no. 5 and no. 8 were measured at t1. ∗ p , 0.05. ∗∗ p , 0.01.
 102 F. Drzensky et al.

Figure 2. Readiness for change as mediator between organizational identification and perceived
benefits. Note: ∗ p , 0.05; ∗∗ p , 0.01.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

included in Table 1. All t-tests and chi-square tests were nonsignificant, and it can
be stated with confidence that the longitudinal sample is representative of the
cross-sectional samples.
To test for main effects and mediation, a series of regression analyses were per-
formed following Baron and Kenny (1986). Regressing readiness for change on OI
showed a significant effect (b ¼ .49; p , .01). Regressing perceived benefits on
readiness for change yielded a significant effect (b ¼ .44; p , .01) also. Thus, OI
is positively related to readiness for change which, in turn, is positively related to
perceived benefits. When readiness for change is controlled for, the previously sig-
nificant regression coefficient of perceived benefits on OI (b ¼ .24; p , .01) is no
longer significant (b ¼ .04; p ¼ .71). The Sobel test confirms the significance of
the indirect effect (Z ¼ 3.50, p , .01). These results fully support H1, H2 and H3.
The mediation results are illustrated in Figure 2. The mediation effect remains
stable when age and gender are included as control variables.
To test for moderation, two hierarchical regression analyses were performed,
followed by simple slope analyses, as suggested by Aiken and West (1991).
Again, age and gender were included as control variables. H4 predicted a
closer relationship between OI and readiness for change when perceived
culture of change is positive. Table 1 shows a positive correlation between per-
ceived culture of change and readiness for change (r ¼ .47; p , .01). The sig-
nificant interaction effect for OI and perceived culture of change (b ¼ .26; p
, .01) is depicted in Table 2. The simple slope at low perceived culture of
change is b ¼ .26 (p ¼ .03). For high perceived culture of change, the slope
is b ¼ .74 (p , .01). The interaction effect remains stable, whether control vari-
ables are included or not. Figure 3 demonstrates the pattern of the interaction.
Thus, H4 is supported.
In H5, we predicted a stronger relationship between OI and readiness for change
when coping with change is high. Table 1 shows a positive correlation of coping
with change and readiness for change (r ¼ .63; p , .01). The significant
interaction term of OI and coping with change (b ¼ .32; p , .01) is shown in
Table 3.
Again, the interaction term is not affected whether or not control variables
are considered. The simple slope at low level of coping with change is b ¼ .08
(p ¼ .51). The simple slope for a high level of coping with change is b ¼ .76
(p , .01). Figure 4 illustrates the interaction slopes. H5 is thus supported.
 Ready for a Change? 103
Table 2. Moderated regression analysis for culture of change and organizational identification
predicting readiness for change

Variable DR2 B SE B b

Step 1 .02
Intercept -.49 .36 -.48
Sex .31 .23 .47
Age .00 .11 .00
Step 2 .43∗∗
Intercept -.26 .28 -.25
Sex .10 .18 .16
Age -.06 .09 -.06
Organizational identification .49 .09 .49∗∗
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

Perceived culture of change .40 .09 .40∗∗

Step 3 .07∗∗
Intercept -.32 .26 -.32
Sex .12 .17 .18
Age -.06 .08 -.06
Organizational identification .50 .09 .50∗∗
Perceived culture of change .38 .08 .38∗∗
Organizational identification × Perceived culture of change .24 .08 .26∗∗

Note: R2 ¼ .52∗∗ ; ∗∗ p , .01.

Figure 3. Perceived culture of change as moderator between OI and readiness for change.

Discussion
This research contributes to the literature on the role of OI in the context of organ-
izational change. A high level of OI prior to the change is related to a higher level
of readiness for change, which in turn is a viable predictor of perceived benefits of
the change process one year later. By reason of the longitudinal design, the authors
are confident in the causality of the mediation. Thus, this study provides further
support for the great importance of readiness for change. In this case, the positive
 104 F. Drzensky et al.
Table 3. Moderated regression analysis for coping with change and organizational identification
predicting readiness for change

Variable D2 B SE B b

Step 1 .08
Intercept -.14 .41 -.14
Sex .26 .25 .41
Age -.06 .13 -.06
Step 2 .48∗∗
Intercept .20 .29 .19
Sex -.03 .18 -.05
Age -.06 .10 -.06
Organizational identification .40 .10 .41∗∗
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

Coping with change .51 .09 .50∗∗

Step 3 .09∗∗
Intercept .10 .26 .10
Sex -.03 .16 -.04
Age -.07 .09 -.07
Organizational identification .42 .09 .42∗∗
Coping with change .50 .08 .49∗∗
Organizational identification × Coping with change .34 .09 .32∗∗

Note: R2 ¼ .65∗∗ ; ∗∗ p , .01.

Figure 4. Coping with change as moderator between organizational identification and readiness for
change.

effect of OI is in line with predictions of the social identity approach. Although

one could argue that OI will lead to stagnation, the current study predicts and
shows the opposite. OI is related to an improved ex post evaluation of the
change process, mediated by an increased readiness for change. Nevertheless,
the effects of OI may vary across different cases. Even though only one organiz-
ation was studied, between-person variations allowed the context dependencies of
OI to be studied.
Evidence was found that the relationship between OI and readiness for change is
affected by a perceived culture of change and coping with change. The results
 Ready for a Change? 105
demonstrate that the relationship between OI and readiness for change is higher
when the perceived culture of change is strong or when coping with change is
high. Perceived culture of change and coping with change are not expected to
be the only variables that can possibly moderate the relationship between OI
and readiness for change. Nevertheless, the authors are confident that having
identified those moderating variables contributes to understanding of the
complex role of OI in organizational change processes. In summary, even if a
positive main effect of OI on readiness for change was found, the existence of
interaction effects indicates that it cannot be assumed that this relationship is
generally positive, but rather context and person specific.
The moderation effect of perceived culture of change is in full accordance with
the social identity approach. As mentioned previously, Dutton et al. (1994) define
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

OI as the overlap between attributes of the individual and the organization. This
implies that OI and readiness for change should be positively correlated only if
the change is perceived to be in accordance to those attributes. Evidently, for pre-
dicting effects of OI, it is not sufficient to consider only the strength of identifi-
cation. In addition to the identity level, it is necessary to examine the identity’s
content. In this vein, this study empirically supports Kotter (1995), who high-
lighted the necessity of embodying change in the organizational culture.
The fact that OI does not relate to a higher level of readiness for change when
coping with change is low, is, in some respects, contradictory to the assumptions
of the social identity approach. In line with this, Rousseau (1998) argued that
‘since employees are more likely to anticipate resource changes under conditions
of high identification, the short-term losses associated with organizational change
may be made more tolerable by future anticipated benefits in a high-identification
work setting’ (p. 228). If OI inoculates employees against the negative impact of
individual deficits such as low coping resources, high OI should weaken the
relationship between coping with change and readiness for change. By contrast,
however, the coefficient of the interaction is positive. This raises the question
of the mechanism by which OI may benefit readiness for change. According to
Rousseau (1998), the effect should be determined by a higher readiness for
change for those who are disadvantaged by the change process. In the present
case, however, the effect is driven by those who are in an advantageous
position. In other words, instead of inoculating against the downsides of
change, in this case, OI additionally increased the winner’s readiness for
change. The existing literature, however, demonstrates the importance of one’s
ability to cope in the context of organizational change. The low ability to cope
can be interpreted as a powerful threat that might then even overcome the positive
effects of OI.
However, the small changes in OI from t1 to t2 and the mean level of perceived
benefits that is close to the scale’s midpoint indicate that, on average, changes in
daily work were perceived as being relatively small. So, the majority of employees
seemed to have perceived relatively high continuity (see Ullrich et al., 2005).
Although the change project was discussed quite controversially in the beginning
(this aspect is represented by a moderate mean in readiness for change), the
employees were found to have mostly accepted the change project one year
later. The change project is therefore considered successful.
 106 F. Drzensky et al.
The findings in this study explain how OI can influence change processes, in
particular via its impact on readiness for change. In addition, the research
reveals those cases in which OI is more strongly associated with readiness for
change, namely when the employees perceive the that organization has adopted
a culture of change and when individual employees think they have resources
to cope with the change.

Limitations
A German university that was transforming its legal form was studied. Although
this transformation presumably affected the identity of the organization, it was
only a ‘soft’ change compared with intensive structural change processes such
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

as large-scale downsizing (see Worrall et al., 2004) or organizational mergers

or acquisitions (see e.g. van Dick et al., 2004). In this regard, caution should be
used when generalizing the main effects. Nevertheless, interaction effects may
remain valid – even in cases of more massive organizational changes.
The comparability between the longitudinal and the cross-sectional was exam-
ined, but their representativeness for the whole organization cannot be proven.
More importantly, the research did not set out to explore the levels of the con-
structs but relationships between them. Thus, even though response rates were
low, it is possible to believe in the validity of the relationship pattern that
emerged in the data.
Another limitation of the study is that it relied on single-source data. Common
method variance may therefore increase the estimates of main effects. Impor-
tantly, however, common method variance cannot account for interactions
(Evans, 1985; McClelland and Judd, 1993). Despite the single-source design, it
is therefore possible to have some confidence in the moderation effects. Further-
more, despite the single-source design, the fact that a longitudinal approach was
used also increases confidence concerning the directionality of effects. Because
of the nature of the correlation hypothesis, the results cannot be claimed to be cau-
sally interpretable.

Implications
How can the results of this study inform change agents in designing successful
change processes? To achieve lasting success in change processes, one should
aspire to a high readiness for organizational change. As in previous research,
this study has demonstrated that the effects of OI also depend on diverse con-
ditions (perceived culture of change and ability to cope were studied as modera-
tors). It is recommended that change agents arrange those conditions in such a way
that OI can boost readiness for change.
Following this, organizations should strive for a culture of change as a key
element of the organization’s overall culture. Establishing a culture of change
in the organization is certainly not a short-term process. Nevertheless, to
improve change processes, the identity of the organization should be congruent
with change and innovation. This should be considered in the communication
process – ideally well before the change process commences. Additionally, OI
 Ready for a Change? 107
will not lead to higher readiness for change when employees perceive they have
only limited abilities to cope with the change. To improve employees’ ability to
cope, this study suggests creating a supportive organizational climate, or a
‘socio-emotional orientation’. Thus, internal and external communication
should minimize ambiguities and the organization should allow employees
voice and influence (Gaertner et al., 2001).
Additionally, previous studies have identified a sense of continuity as an impor-
tant variable interacting with OI (van Knippenberg and van Leeuwen, 2001). Fol-
lowing van Knippenberg and van Leeuwen (2001), employees should not feel that
they work for an entirely different organization after the change process. Ullrich
et al. (2005) show the importance of future-oriented continuity: since a sense of
continuity is not always possible or easy to accomplish, change agents should
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

answer the question of ‘where are we going to and what can we do to make it
happen (p. 1562)’– which Ullrich et al. coined ‘projected continuity’.
Perhaps the most important – but often neglected – factor in the context of
organizational change is the content of the change processes. If change processes
are not aligned with the organization’s interests and identity, then the highly ident-
ified employees will resist fiercely. Thus, it is important to interpret resistance to
change as being content dependent and not simply as irrational behaviour. Unfor-
tunately, even if it were possible to objectively define the interests or identity of a
particular organization, for a prediction of individual behaviour, the definition of
organizational attributes is in the eye of the beholder. During change processes,
managers are advised to emphasize the anticipated benefits resulting from the
change process in all their communications, and also to take employee concerns
seriously. According to a large body of organizational change research, adequate
information and participation are promising elements of successful change
management.
If change agents create these conditions, OI is a powerful construct for driving
readiness for change. However, increasing OI in the short-term is not easy or
simple (see Riketta et al., 2006). But the social identity approach also shows
identification to be situation dependent. Thus, managers should strive to make
an existing identification salient. This can be achieved with adequate communi-
cation. Managers can, for example, refer to the organization’s recent successes,
to its successful history or point to aspects that positively differentiate the organ-
ization from major competitors.
By their very nature, highly identified group members are likely to be perceived
as being prototypical. Because groups have a tendency to be influenced by proto-
typical leaders (Ullrich, Christ, and van Dick, 2009), independent of their hier-
archical position, highly identified employees are more likely to be opinion
leaders. Change agents should be especially aware of the need to enhance readi-
ness for change in highly identified employees, because they are likely to be
more productive and more likely to produce multiplier effects.

Conclusion
This research contributes to the understanding of OI as a predictor of employees’
adjustment to change. The study has introduced previously unknown effects to the
 108 F. Drzensky et al.
social identity literature. As one of the rare studies that does not focus on M&As, it
applied the social identity approach to a change process in general. Further
research is desirable to replicate these findings in various organizational contexts
and for different types of change. Additionally, in the present study, it was not
possible to study differences between organizations or departments within the
organization. Therefore, perceived culture of change has been operationalized
as an individual differences variable. Even if individual behaviour depends on
individual perceptions of the organization’s identity, future research should
assess culture of change as an organizational-level variable between different
organizations. Also, the interplay between OI and coping with change is worth
further analysis. In consideration of the contradiction between this study’s
results and the social identity literature, further research should answer the ques-
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

tion, who is more strongly affected by OI: those who suffer or those who gain from
organizational change processes?
However, these results can help managers and researchers improve an employ-
ee’s readiness for change.

References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions (Newbury Park,
CA: Sage).
Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (1985) Organizational identity, in: L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds) Research in
Organizational Behavior. An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, pp. 263–295 (Green-
wich, CT: JAI Press).
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1993) Creating readiness for organizational change,
Human Relations, 46(6), pp. 681–703.
Baron, M.B. 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,
51(6), pp. 1173–1182.
Cunningham, C.E., Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D. and Brown, J.
(2002) Readiness for organizational change: a longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavior-
al correlates, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), pp. 377–392.
Danisman, A. (2010) Good intentions and failed implementations: understanding culture- based resistance to
organizational change, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(2), pp. 200–220.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994) Organizational images and member idenfication, Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), pp. 239–263.
Ellemers, N. (2003) Identity, culture, and change in organizations: a social identity analysis and three illustrative
cases, in: S.A. Haslam, M.J. Platow and D. van Knippenberg (eds) Social Identity at Work: Developing
Theory for Organizational Practice, pp. 191–204 (New York: Taylor & Francis).
Evans, M.G. (1985) A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple
regression analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), pp. 305–323.
Gaertner, S.L., Bachman, B.A., Dovidio, J. and Banker, B.S. (2001) Corporate mergers and stepfamily marriages:
identity, harmony, and commitment, in: M.A. Hogg and D.J. Terry (eds) Social Identity Processes in Organ-
izational Contexts, pp. 265–282 (Philadelphia: Psychology Press).
Hogg, M.A. (2000) Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: a motivational theory of social
identity processes, European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), pp. 223–255.
Hogg, M.A. (2001) A social identity theory of leadership, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3),
pp. 184–200.
Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000) Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts,
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), pp. 121–140.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. and Harris, S.G. (2007) Readiness for organizational change: the sys-
tematic development of a scale, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), pp. 232–255.
 Ready for a Change? 109
IBM Global Business Services (2009) Making Change Work, Available at http://www-935.ibm.com/services/de/
bcs/html/making-change-work.html?cntxt ¼ a1007088 (accessed 31 October 2009).
Jetten, J., O’Brien, A. and Trindall, N. (2002) Changing identity: predicting adjustment to organizational restruc-
ture as a function of subgroup and superordinate identification, British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2),
pp. 281–297.
King, D.R., Dalton, D.R., Daily, C.M. and Covin, J.G. (2004) Meta- analysis of post- acquisition performance:
indications of unidentified moderators, Strategic Management Journal, 25(2), pp. 187–200.
Kotter, J.P. (1995) Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review, 73(2), pp. 59–67.
Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and
social change, Human Relations, 1(5), pp. 5–41.
Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science (New York: Harper and Row).
Lewin, K. (1958) Group decision and social change, in: E. Maccoby, T. Newcomb and E. Hartley (eds) Readings
in Social Psychology, pp. 197–211 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston).
Mael, F.A. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992) Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

organizational idenfitication, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), pp. 103–123.

McClelland, G.H. and Judd, C.M. (1993) Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects,
Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), pp. 376–390.
Riketta, M. and Van Dick, R. (2005) Foci of attachment in organizations: a meta-analysis comparison of the
strength and correlates of work-group versus organizational commitment and identification, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 67(3), pp. 490–510.
Riketta, M., Van Dick, R. and Rousseau, D. (2006) Employee attachment in the short and long run: antecedents
and consequences of situated and deep structure identification, Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 5(3),
pp. 85–93.
Rousseau, D.M. (1998) Why workers still identify with organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3),
pp. 217–233.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict, in: W.G. Austin and S. Worchel
(eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 33–47 (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole).
Terry, D.J. (2001) Intergroup relations and organizational mergers, in: M.A. Hogg and D.J. Terry (eds) Social
Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts, pp. 249–264 (Philadelphia: Psychology Press).
Terry, D.J., Callan, V.C. and Sartori, G. (1996) Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: stress, coping,
and intergroup differences, Stress Medicine, 12(2), pp. 105–122.
Terry, D.J., Carey, C.J. and Callan, V.J. (2001) Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: an intergroup
perspective, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(3), pp. 267–280.
Turner, J.C. (1985) Social categorization and the self-concept: a social cognitive theory of group behavior, in:
E.J. Lawler (ed) Advances in Group Processes, vol. 2, pp. 77–122 (Greenwich, CT: JAI).
Ullrich, J., Christ, O. and van Dick, R. (2009) Substitutes for procedural fairness: prototypical leaders are
endorsed whether they are fair or not, Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), pp. 235–244.
Ullrich, J., Wieseke, J. and van Dick, R. (2005) Continuity and change in mergers and acquisitions: a social iden-
tity case study of a German industrial merger, Journal of Management Studies, 42(8), pp. 1549–1596.
Van Dick, R. (2001) Identification in organizational contexts: linking theory and research from social and organ-
izational psychology, International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), pp. 265–283.
Van Dick, R. (2004) Commitment und Identifikation mit Organisationen (Göttingen: Hogrefe).
Van Dick, R., Ullrich, J. and Tissington, P.A. (2006) Working under a black cloud: how to sustain organizational
identification after a merger, British Journal of Management, 17(S1), pp. 69–79.
Van Dick, R., Wagner, U. and Lemmer, G. (2004) Research note: The winds of change – multiple identifications
in the case of organizational mergers, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(2),
pp. 121–138.
Van Dijk, R.L. and van Dick, R. (2009) Navigating organizational change: change leaders, employee resistance
and work-based identities, Journal of change Management, 9(2), pp. 143–163.
Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L. and de Lima, F. (2002) Organizational identification
after a merger: a social identity perspective, British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), pp. 233–252.
Van Knippenberg, D. and van Leeuwen, E. (2001) Organizational identity after a merger: sense of continuity as
the key to postmerger identification, in: M.A. Hogg and D.J. Terry (eds) Social Identity Processes in Organ-
izational Contexts, pp. 249–264 (Philadelphia: Psychology Press).
Worrall, L., Parkes, C. and Cooper, C.L. (2004) The impact of organizational change on the perceptions of UK
managers, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(2), pp. 139–163.
 110 F. Drzensky et al.
Appendix
Register of all change items. All items were originally in German

Readiness for change

Most of my colleagues are positive about the change into a [new legal form].

In the long run, the change into a [new legal form] brings to me more advantages
than disadvantages.

I mainly expect benefits from the change into a [new legal form].
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

This change is necessary for the development of the [universitýs name].

This change is necessary for the [universitýs name] survival in the competition.

There will be better possibilities for development after the change.

The [new legal form] will endure.

Perceived culture of change

In our university, tradition is more important than change.

Generally we agree that things, which have always worked, do not need to be
changed.

In our university, change is more likely to mean risk than prospects.

Coping with change

I am confident that I am able to cope with the change without problems.

Even after the change has been implemented for some time I will feel stressed.
(reversed)

Perceived benefits of change

Please estimate whether job security decreased, increased, or did not change at all
as a result of this change].

Please estimate whether your salary decreased, increased, or did not change at all
as a result of this change.

Please estimate whether opportunities for promotion decreased, increased, or did

not change at all as a result of this change.

Please estimate whether autonomy decreased, increased, or did not change at all as
a result of this change.
 Ready for a Change? 111
Please estimate whether occupational stress decreased, increased, or did not
change at all as a result of this change.

Please estimate whether contact among colleagues decreased, increased, or did not
change at all as a result of this change.

Please estimate whether job demands decreased, increased, or did not change at all
as a result of this change.

Please estimate whether cooperation with other departments decreased, increased,

or did not change at all as a result of this change.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 01:48 08 January 2015

Please estimate whether speediness task execution decreased, increased, or did not
change at all as a result of this change.

Please estimate whether [universitýs name] reputation decreased, increased, or did

not change at all as a result of this change.