We agree with this conclusion, and we focus on change readiness, which has been defined as an

individual’s “beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the
organization’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes” (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder,
1993: 681). Change readiness is the most prevalent positive attitude toward change that has been
studied in the organizational change literature. Indeed, in a review of the literature, Bouckenooghe
(2010) concluded that over 90% of conceptual work on change attitudes has been conducted on either
change readiness or resistance to change.

Change Readiness: A Multilevel Review Alannah E. Rafferty The University of New South Wales
Nerina L. Jimmieson The University of Queensland Achilles A. Armenakis Auburn University

Journal of Management

‘‘Readiness’’ is defined as being prepared for action.9 The concept of readiness has been shown to be
an important predictor of engagement in ACP.10 Determining the barriers, facilitators, and readiness
for a change in practice is also a key foundation of knowledge translation – a method of bridging the
knowledge to action gap.11 However, little literature has explicitly addressed ACP readiness in
patients with renal failure. Some articles address the concept of readiness in an indirect way,12 yet the
overall evidence for addressing readiness within the renal failure context is currently scarce and worthy
of future study.

Readiness to participate in advance care planning: A qualitative study of renal failure patients, families
and healthcare providers Lauren A Hutchison,1 Donna S Raffin-Bouchal,1 Charlotte A Syme,2 Patricia
D Biondo3 and Jessica E Simon3

Chronic Illness

Most scholars suggest that one of the primary determining factors of a given
organizational
change intervention’s success is the level of readiness among the population in
which the change is being implemented (e.g., Armenakis & Harris, 2009; By,
2007;
Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007; Self & Schraeder, 2009). Indeed, on its surface,
the
idea of change readiness appears to be a fairly intuitive and appealing concept,
namely, individuals are more likely to participate in and support change that they are ready for in the
first place. Unfortunately, there is a good deal of confusion in the literature regarding how “readiness”
ought to be appropriately conceptualized. Such confusion is easily illustrated not only by the sheer
number of terms that are often used to capture this concept (e.g., receptivity, openness, attitudes,
beliefs, intentions to support change, capacity, commitment) but also the various theoretical or practical
foundations that have been proposed (e.g., Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Herscovitch &
Meyer, 2002; Jimmieson, Peach, & White, 2008; Prochaska, Prochaska, & Levesque, 2001). Despite
the efforts of several recent reviews that have attempted to clarify this diverse literature (cf.
Bouckenooghe, 2010; Choi & Ruona, 2011; Holt, Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 2007; Oreg, Vakola, &
Armenakis, 2011; Weiner, Amick, & Lee, 2008), there still remains a fair amount of conceptual
imprecision in definitions of readiness

Mengenai bagaimana “kesiapan” seharusnya dikonseptualisasikan dengan baik

memang terdapat banyak kebingungan, hal tersebut tidak hanya menggunakan
angka belaka yang sering menggunakan konsep (penerimaan, keterbukaan,
sikap, keyakinan, niat untuk mendukung perubahan, kapasitas, dan komitmen)
tetapi juga beberapa variasi teori atau praktis yang telah diusulkan.