This article was downloaded by:[University Of Melbourne]
On: 15 October 2007
Access Details: [subscription number 773216478]
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.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713703618 Ready or Not …

Rune Todnem By a a School of Business & Enterprise, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK
Online Publication Date: 01 March 2007
To cite this Article: By, Rune Todnem (2007) 'Ready or Not …', Journal of Change
Management, 7:1, 3 - 11
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/14697010701265249
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697010701265249

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded By: [University Of Melbourne] At: 06:35 15 October 2007

Journal of Change Management
Vol. 7, No. 1, 3 –11, March 2007

Ready or Not . . .
RUNE TODNEM BY
School of Business & Enterprise, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK

ABSTRACT Several authors argue there is a clear correlation between the level of an organization’s change readiness and the successful management of change. Based on primary data, collected through a series of interviews with managers representing the UK tourism industry, this article provides a critical evaluation of Armenakis and colleague’s change readiness framework. Although supporting many of the main suggestions made by Armenakis and colleagues, the article complements the original framework. It suggests a fourth message conveying strategy (implicit communication), a stronger emphasis on the importance of continuous change management and a more explicit link between change readiness and the successful management of change. Furthermore, the article argues that change management should focus on performance rather than conformance. Thus, it suggests there are only two approaches to organizational change management: the conscious and the unconscious. The former approach, which can consist of any of the conventional approaches to change management, advocates continuous change readiness.
KEY WORDS : Change management, change readiness

Introduction

The failure rate of change initiatives makes abysmal reading. According to
Balogun and Hailey (2004), approximately 70 per cent of all change programmes fail. The methodology behind reaching this specific number can arguably be questioned along with the interpretation of ‘failure’ and ‘success’. Nevertheless, academics and practitioners are clearly concerned that many still get change wrong. This article reports on a primary study critically evaluating Armenakis et al.’s (1993; Armenakis and Harris, 2002) change readiness framework. Such change readiness has been defined as ‘the cognitive precursor to the behaviours of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort’ (Armenakis et al., 1993, pp. 681–2). Further elaborating on this concept, Jones et al. (2005, p. 362) note

Correspondence Address: Rune Todnem By, School of Business & Enterprise, Queen Margaret