Psychological Readiness for Organizational Change and its Socio-Psychological Predictors



Objectives. The study of socio-psychological predictors of employees’ readiness for changes (identification with the organization as a whole, identification with the unit, injective and descriptive norms) and the ratio of their contribution to the formation of employees’ readiness for changes. Background. Due to rapid technological development, the number of necessary changes within organizations is growing. A well-formed employees’ readiness for the upcoming changes is needed for the success of their implementation. It will affect the productivity of work processes. Study design. The study examined the level of readiness for organizational changes, the level of identification with the organization, with the unit, and subjective norms (injective and descriptive). Regression analysis was used to process the data. Socio-demographic characteristics differences were analyzed using the Mann—Whitney U-test and the Kruskel-Wallis N-test. Participants. The study sample included the state medical organization employees’ implementing electronic records and medical records (n = 308). Measurements. To evaluate variables, we used questionnaire “Readiness for Organizational Change” by D. Holt, questionnaire by B. Ashfort, F. Mael “Organizational Identification”, and scales for assessing perceived norms of M. Fishbein and A. Aizen. Results. It is established that identification with an organization, identification with a unit, an injective and descriptive norm are associated with a readiness to change. The strongest predictor of readiness for organizational change is the injective norm for change, the next most powerful predictor is the descriptive norm for change. A less significant contribution to readiness is identification with the organization as a whole. Identification with the working group (or unit) is associated with readiness to change negatively. The level of readiness for organizational changes among managers is significantly higher than among performers. Conclusions. Identification with the organization and unit, injective and descriptive norms make a significant contribution to the formation of employee readiness for change. Significant differences were found in the level of readiness for changes depending on the position: managers demonstrate a higher level compared to ordinary employees. The results of the study can be used by managers and management consultants to assess and build readiness for change.

General Information

Keywords: readiness for organizational changes, organizational identification, identification with a unit, injective group norms, descriptive group norms

Journal rubric: Empirical Research

Article type: scientific article


Funding. The reported study was funded by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), project number 19-013-00393.

For citation: Naumtseva E.A., Stroh W.A. Psychological Readiness for Organizational Change and its Socio-Psychological Predictors. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2020. Vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 151–164. DOI: 10.17759/sps.2020110411. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)



1.        Naumtseva Е.А. Analiz psikhometricheskikh svoistv russkoyazychnoi versii oprosnika D.Kholta “Gotovnost’ k organizatsionnym izmeneniyam” [Analysis of the psychometric properties of the Russian version of the D. Holt questionnaire “Readiness for organizational change”]. Organizatsionnaya psihologiya = Organizational psychology, 2016, no. 4, pp. 104—117. (In Russ.).

2.        Nesmeyanova Р.К. Sub”ektivnoe predstavlenie o korporativnoi kul’ture i organizatsionnaya identifikatsiya: osobennosti vzaimosvyazi [The subjective representation of corporate culture and organizational identification: features of the relationship]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 14. Psihologiya = Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 14. Psychology], 2017, no. 1, pp. 88— 104. (In Russ.).

3.        Onuchin А.N. Perezhivanie sotsial’nykh i organizatsionnykh izmenenii [Experiencing social and organizational change]. In Stefanenko T.G (eds.). Kollektivnie perezhivaniya socialnih problem [Collective experiences of social problems]. Moscow: Smisl, 2015. 240 p. (In Russ.).

4.        Sanzhaeva R.D. Psikhologicheskie mekhanizmy formirovaniya gotovnosti cheloveka k deyatel’nosti. Diss. dokt. psikhol. nauk. [Psychological mechanisms of the formation of human readiness for performance. Dr. Sci. (Psychology) diss.]. Novosibirsk, 1997. 354 p. (In Russ.).

5.        Sidorenkov А.V., Salnikova Е.S., Stroh V.А. Identichnost’ i vklad rabotnikov v deyatel’nost’ maloi proizvodstvennoi gruppy [The identity and contribution of workers to the activities of a small production group]. Psihologiya. Zhurnal Vishei shkoli ekonomiki = Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2019, no. 16(3), pp. 551—561. (In Russ.).

6.        Faerman M.I. Psikhologicheskoe soprovozhdenie innovatsionnoi deyatel’nosti organizatsii: metodicheskie ukazaniya [Psychological support of the organization’s innovative activity: guidelines]. Yaroslavl, 2008. 76 p. (In Russ.).

7.        Armenakis A.A., Harris S.G., Mossholder K.W. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 1993, no. 46, pp. 681—703.

8.        Bartels J., Pruyn A., De Jong M., Joustra I. Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2006. Vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 173—190.

9.        Borsari B., Carey K.B. Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 2001, no. 13, pp. 391—424.

10.    Cialdini R. B., Kallgren C. A., Reno R. R. A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in experimental social psychology, 1991, no. 24, pp. 201—234.

11.    Dick van R., Wagner U., Stellmacher J., Christ O., Tissington P. To Be(long) or Not to Be(long): Social Identification in Organizational Contexts. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 2005. Vol. 131, no. 3. pp. 189—218.

12.    Drzensky F., Egold N., van Dick R. Ready for a Change? A Longitudinal Study of Antecedents, Consequences and Contingencies of Readiness for Change. Journal of Change Management, 2012. Vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 95—111.

13.    Ellemers N. Identity, culture, and change in organizations: a social identity analysis and three illustrative cases. In Haslam S.A., van Knippenberg D., Platow M.J., Ellemers N. (eds.). Social Identity at Work: Developing Theory for Organizational Practice, 2003, no. 191—203.

14.    Fishbein M., Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press, 2010. 538 p.

15.    Goode C., Balzarini R., Smith H. Positive peer pressure: Priming member prototypicality can decrease undergraduate drinking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2014, no. 44, pp. 567.

16.    Hekman D., Steensma K., Bigley G., Hereford J. Effects of Organizational and Professional Identification on the Relationship Between Administrat’rs’ Social Influence and Professional Employes’ Adoption of New Work Behavior. The Journal of applied psychology, 2009, no. 94, pp. 1325.

17.    Holt D.T., Armenakis A.A., Field H.S., Harris S.G. Readiness for organizational change: the systematic development of a scale. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2007, no. 43 (2), pp. 232— 255.

18.    Janssen O., Huang X. Us and me: Team identification and individual differentiation as complementary drivers of team members’ citizenship and creative behaviors. Journal of Management, 2008, no. 34(1), pp. 69—88.

19.    Jones R.A., Jimmieson N.L., Griffiths A. The impact of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: The mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of Management Studies, 2005, no. 42 (2), pp. 361—386.

20.    Lewis N. Norms and observability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2013, no. 43, pp. E97— E108.

21.    Lipponen J. Organizational identifications: Antecedents and consequences of identifications in a shipyard context. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2001. 129 pp.

22.    Mael F., Ashforth B.E. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1992, no. 13 (2), pp. 103—123.

23.    Miscenko D., Day D. Identity and identification at work. Organizational Psychology Review, 2016, no. 6(3), pp. 215—247.

24.    Olkkonen M., Lipponen J. Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group—related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2006, no. 100(2), pp. 202—215.

25.    Porck J., van Knippenberg D., Tarakci M, Ates N., Groenen P., de Haas M. Do Group and Organizational Identification Help or Hurt Intergroup Strategic Consensus? Journal of Management. Advance online publication, 2018, pp. 1—27.

26.    Riketta M. Organizational identification: A meta—analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2005, no. 66 (2), pp. 358—384.

27.    Rimal R., Real K. Understanding the Influence of Perceived Norms on Behaviors. Communication Theory, 2013, no. 13(2), pp. 184—203.

28.    Schepers J., Wetzels M. A meta—analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information, Management, 2007, no. 44, pp. 90—103.

29.    Stangor C., Sechrist G.B., Jost J.T. Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2001, no. 27(4), pp. 486—496.

Information About the Authors

Elena A. Naumtseva, PhD in Psychology, consultant, consulting company Intend, Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:

Wladimir A. Stroh, PhD in Psychology, Professor, Head of the Department of Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, National Research University «Higher School of Economics», Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:



Total: 982
Previous month: 21
Current month: 20


Total: 798
Previous month: 12
Current month: 12