The Development, Validation, A PDF

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), pp 702–722 December 2017.
Copyright © 2017 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. doi:10.1017/iop.2017.79
Practice Forum
The Development, Validation, and Practical

Application of an Employee Agility and Resilience
Measure to Facilitate Organizational Change
Thomas J. Braun, Bryan C. Hayes, Rachel L. Frautschy DeMuth, and Olya A. Taran
Humana Inc.
Traditional change management approaches that focus on linear models and top-
down control have proved less than adequate in addressing organizational change
within the complexity and speed of today’s unprecedented change. Researchers have
suggested that by developing greater workforce agility, companies may be better posi-
tioned to manage or moderate rapid change and use this capability as a competitive
advantage. Complementing current strategies with a different approach to man-
aging change focused on individual agility and resilience may be a first step. This
article focuses on the development, validation, and practical application of an em-
ployee agility and resilience measurement scale as part of a program in support of
an alternative approach to managing organizational change. Results indicate that
focusing on individual agility and resilience can prepare employees to handle uncer-
tainty more successfully by adapting to change quicker and managing stress more
effectively.
Keywords: agility, resilience, measurement scale, organizational change
The complexity and speed of an increasingly turbulent business environ-

ment (e.g., competitive pressure, M&A, expansion, cost reduction, technol-
ogy, etc.) has contributed significant pressure on organizations by requiring
more rapid and constant change than ever before. Some of the more disrup-
tive changes for a company come from the external environment in which
the organization operates. The magnitude of change in the current health-
care environment (e.g., regulatory, demographic, delivery and payment
Thomas J. Braun, Humana Inc.; Bryan C. Hayes, Humana Inc.; Rachel L. Frautschy De-
Muth, Humana Inc.; and Olya Taran, Humana Inc.
The authors would like to thank the many Humana associates who made this work pos-
sible, including Tracy Richardson for her help in assessment development, our Well-Being
team for their partnership and insights, the Enterprise Learning and Development team for
deployment support, and all of our FIT for Change facilitators who bring this work to life every
day for Humana.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thomas J. Braun,
Humana Inc., 500 West Main Street, Louisville, KY 40202. E-mail: tbraun2@humana.com
702
m e a su r i n g e m p l oy e e ag i l i t y a n d r e s i l i e n c e 703
systems/technology, consolidation, etc.) is transforming America’s health-

care industry and, in turn, has accelerated a pivot in Humana Inc.’s long-term
strategy. Critical for Humana’s success, now more than ever, is implementing
a new integrated model of care (including rewarding providers for managing
costs and delivering quality care), enhancing the consumer experience, and
improving the well-being of the communities we serve. This is a major de-
parture from traditional strategies found in the healthcare insurance indus-
try, and Humana quickly recognized that this required significant changes
for the company and its employees. The business need was to ensure the
organization had the agility needed to quickly execute this strategic course
change successfully. This required industrial and organizational (I-O) prac-
titioners to develop and build robust and innovative change readiness and
change management capabilities for Humana.
However, successfully managing change for large organizations has al-
ways been difficult, even under the best circumstances. In response, a num-
ber of change management models have evolved over the past 3 decades to
help organizations manage change more effectively. One of the most popu-
lar of these approaches (Mento, Jones, & Dirndofer, 2002) is Kotter’s (1996)
eight-stage process, which addresses organizational change as a process that
moves from one fixed state to another through a series of preplanned steps.
Large numbers of organizations (including Humana) have adopted Kotter’s
model, or some variation of it, as their preferred methodology to manage
change (Brisson-Banks, 2010). Despite the popularity of these models, prac-
titioners have found that planned change models are often slow, static, best
suitable for times of stability, and fail to consider critical issues such as the
continuous need for employee flexibility (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006; Kanter,
1999). Over the years, we have experienced similar results with our large-
scale change efforts and have identified a number of organizational barri-
ers that often produce unintended consequences regarding planned change.
These barriers include organizational culture (e.g., change-resistant culture),
structure (e.g., size, distribution, spans, and layers), process (e.g., different
change models, tools, and language), talent (e.g., inexperienced change prac-
titioners), and focus (e.g., organization versus individual). As a result, we
have found that facilitating organizational change with a planned change
management model often fails to meet our stated objectives. Based on this
experience, it was no surprise to us that a 2008 IBM study of more than
1,500 change practitioners and researchers found that only 41% of change
projects met their objectives regarding time, budget, and quality (Jorgensen,
Owen, & Neus, 2008). The remaining 59% missed at least one objective or
failed completely. Perhaps the most important finding of this research was
that a detailed analysis of the results showed that success of the change ef-
forts depended largely on people, not on process or technology. As Wolf
704 t h om a s j. b r au n e t a l .
(2011) asserts, “Models of planned change may no longer be sufficient to

address the needs of today’s organizations. The world no longer moves in
incremental steps, but rather in significant leaps that call for new modes of
effecting change” (pp. 20–21). In today’s turbulent, fast-paced business envi-
ronment, even Kotter has acknowledged that the change strategies that may
have worked in the past are currently failing organizations (Kotter, 2012).
For Humana, it was clear that if our organizational transformation was to
succeed, we needed to complement our standard change practices with a
new approach.
At the same time, several authors have suggested that organizational
agility is imperative for organizations to remain competitive, profitable, and
able to successfully execute on new initiatives (McKinsey, 2010; Project Man-
agement Institute, 2012). One required element of organizational agility is
an agile workforce: a well-trained and flexible workforce that can adapt
quickly and easily to new opportunities and market circumstances (Muduli,
2013). Muduli identified several common attributes of an agile workforce,
which closely match the attributes of organizational agility reviewed in
Charbonnier-Voirin (2011). These attributes include proactivity (the initi-
ation of activities that have a positive effect on a changed environment) and
adaptivity (changing or modifying oneself or their behavior to better fit in the
new environment, which includes flexibility to pursue different tactics and
to quickly change from one strategy to another). Collaboration, cooperation,
knowledge sharing, and employee empowerment are also noted as hallmarks
of an agile organization and agile individuals. All of these attributes are
key elements of successful employee involvement in organizational change
efforts.
To complement our planned change approaches as well as build organi-
zational agility, we proposed focusing on individual agility by equipping our
employees with the skills to proactively identify and implement change when
needed. After all, successful organizational change depends on persuading
hundreds (or thousands) of individuals to think differently. In fact, research
has found a positive relationship between individual behavioral change and
organizational change outcomes (Robertson, Roberts, & Porras, 1993). Our
goal was to help employees better understand and manage their own reac-
tions to change by providing them with a simple approach that was both easy
to remember and practice.
We would be remiss to address agility and change without focusing on
the stress that is often associated with change. Research has suggested that
workplace stress is responsible for at least 120,000 deaths per year and be-
tween 5% and 8% of annual healthcare costs in the United States (Goh, Pf-
effer, & Zenios, 2016). In addition, the American Institute of Stress reports
that workplace stress carries a price tag for US industry estimated at over
$300 billion annually as a result of accidents, absenteeism, employee

turnover, workers’ compensation awards, and diminished productivity. Re-
silience enables individuals to recover after experiencing stressful life events,
such as significant change, adversity, and hardship (Warner & April, 2012). In
the study of stress, trauma, setbacks, and challenges, resilience has emerged
as a key differentiator between those who “bounce back” and those who do
not. In fact, one of the hallmarks of highly resilient individuals is the ability
to emerge from setbacks stronger than before the challenging event or situa-
tion (Coutu, 2002; Reivich, Seligman, & McBride, 2011; Seligman, 2011). In
response, organizations and the people who lead them have focused on im-
proving their personal resilience. In a recent study of over 470 North Amer-
ican companies, McCann, Selsky, and Lee (2009) found that companies with
greater levels of organizational agility and resilience were more competitive
and profitable, even in highly turbulent environments. These researchers
also concluded that “Pursuing agility without investing in resiliency is risky
because it creates fragility—unsupported exposure to surprises and shocks”
(McCann et al., 2009, p. 45).
Having implemented traditional change management methodology
with varied success, we saw an opportunity to develop individual change
readiness skills in our workforce. To achieve this, we designed, developed,
and deployed a change readiness program that would assist our employ-
ees to view change as positive, identify and act on opportunities to change,
and manage change in a personally healthy way. The resulting program (FIT
for ChangeTM ; FIT = Feel, Innovate, Take Action) was deployed using mul-
tiple channels including a 4-hour classroom experience, virtual facilitated
web sessions, and as a self-directed learning experience. In our approach to
build this program, we solicited input from our employees via focus groups.
One of the most important things we learned from this exercise was em-
ployees’ expressed desire to know where they stood in terms of their own
agility and resilience so they could focus on their own improvement. In re-
sponse, we developed and validated a change readiness assessment of indi-
vidual agility and resilience. We believed this would supplement the learning
program by providing employees feedback they could use for development
planning, and we could use this information to assess change in employees’
readiness. Our goal was to minimize the reliance on traditional change man-
agement approaches, reduce disruption brought on by change, and create a
supportive environment where workers proactively look for opportunities
to improve because they have the skills to deal with change in a positive
manner. If organizations add a focus on building the skills of agility and
resilience at the individual level, workforces will be more effective at imple-
menting change initiatives. More importantly, a workforce skilled at prac-
ticing agility is more likely to initiate change (as the environment indicates)
in order to remain effective, making change a natural part of organizational

operations. In the sections below, we define the change readiness assessment
in detail, outline several potential antecedents and correlates of the assess-
ment constructs that were used in its validation and that have implications
for managing change, discuss the validation procedures and results, present
the results of its initial application, and discuss the implications of our
work.
With this issue of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspec-
tives on Science and Practice (IOP) journal, the Practice Forum concludes its
first full year of operation. The Practice Forum published its first manuscript
in Volume 9, Issue 4, and since then, three additional papers have been pub-
lished.
The Forum could not have seen this level of output without the hard
work of several excellent reviewers. Both John Scott and I would like to thank
the following colleagues for their help in reviewing submissions:
r Alexander Alonso, Society for Human Resource Management

r Ted R. Axton, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
r Mariangela Battista, International Game Technology (IGT)
r Andrew Biga, JetBlue Airways
r Warren Bobrow, All About Performance
r Deb J. Cohen, Deb Cohen, LLC
r Kenneth P. De Meuse, Wisconsin Management Group
r Erica Desrosiers, Johnson and Johnson
r Alexis A. Fink, Intel Corporation
r Tracy Kantrowitz, CEB Gartner
r William H. Macey, CultureFactors, Inc.
r Christopher T. Rotolo, PepsiCo
r Scott I. Tannenbaum, The Group for Organizational Effectiveness
Definitions, Correlates, and Criterion

As a novel approach to change management, no existing scales were found
that matched the current definitions of resilience and agility. Therefore, de-
sign of the research was focused on validating new measures. Potential an-
tecedents, or correlates, and consequences of agility and resilience are dis-
cussed and used for validation support. These are also discussed as potential
components of the measurement instrument for use in practice to provide
guidance for individuals’ development and their knowledge of potential out-
comes. Note, however, that the research design used does not provide clear
support for causation.
Definitions and Criterion

Consistent with existing research on agility at the organizational level of
analysis (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011; Muduli, 2013), agility at the individ-
ual level of analysis was defined as the skill to proactively create opportu-
nities or overcome obstacles by rethinking or redefining typical approaches.
Agility involves monitoring the current environment to anticipate change
and responding in a timely and effective way when changing circumstances
require it. Agility is a skill that can be developed, and agility takes effort on
the part of the individual to monitor the environment and proactively make
changes; both factors that can create stress for the individual. Existing theory
and research suggests that agility is positively related to individuals’ stress
(McCann et al., 2009).
Because fostering agility could increase stress, the change readiness pro-
gram also sought to develop individual resilience to help offset this increase
(Coutu, 2002; McCann et al., 2009, Reivich, Seligman, & McBride, 2011;
Seligman, 2011; Warner & April, 2012). Resilience at the individual level
of analysis has been defined as the emotional and psychological transition
related to change (Bridges, 1980), responding effectively to either mitigate
stress caused by the change, or managing or reducing increased stress. Re-
silience can take many forms, including cognitive (e.g., framing), emotional,
or behavioral. Stress is proposed to be related to both agility and resilience,
with agility positively related to stress and resilience negatively related to
stress.
With organizational agility considered as a contributor to a company’s
success, it is reasonable that individual agility would be valued by the or-
ganization. Although for some, agility may be part of existing role require-
ments, such as those in top leadership positions, it is likely outside the
explicit job scope for many positions. If individual agility is truly bene-
ficial to the organization’s performance (e.g., proactively making needed
changes in response to the environment), then an individual’s skill with
agility could impact evaluation of his or her performance, even if it is not
an explicit role requirement, functioning similar to organizational citizen-
ship behavior (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Podsakoff, Whiting, Pod-
sakoff, & Blume, 2009). Agility is proposed to be positively related to job
performance.
Correlates
To create a more holistic approach to developing agility and resilience, the
measurement instrument included potential antecedents or correlates. Al-
though some variables are theoretical antecedents, their true relationship, for
example to the resilience–stress relationship, may be covariate. The existing
literature identifies several potential antecedents, sometimes attributed to
both agility and resilience. In 7 of the 10 studies highlighted by Charbonnier-

Voirin (2011), collaboration, cooperation, and/or work relationships were
identified as characteristics of agility. Presumably, building collaborative re-
lationships with others across an organization provides needed information
to monitor the current environment, much of which is outside individuals’
day-to-day surroundings and fosters the effectiveness of making changes to
policies, procedures, and practices (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011). Specifically,
collaboration with others outside of one’s own area of the organization may
be an antecedent to agility, recognizing that collaboration may also be a co-
variate, with high agility leading to high collaboration. Cross-organizational
collaboration is proposed to be positively related to agility.
Including potential antecedents for resilience is especially important, as
resilience is a general tendency and, therefore, may be more difficult for an
individual to change. Including possible antecedents provides individuals
with additional areas for focused development, recognizing that the current
research design does not support causation. With resilience defined as an in-
dividual’s tendency to respond effectively to either mitigate stress caused by
change or manage or reduce increased stress, there are many individual traits
and behaviors that may serve as antecedents or correlates (American Psy-
chological Association, 2016). There is extant evidence on the effectiveness
of various behavioral and cognitive-emotional approaches, such as physi-
cal activity, social support, and mindfulness practices (Cohen-Katz, Wiley,
Capuano, Baker, & Shapiro, 2004; Hunter & McCormick, 2008; Schwartz &
McCarthy, 2007; Southwick & Charney, 2013), and the connection between
social support and work-related stress and burnout is well supported (e.g.,
Etzion, 1984; Halbesleben, 2006). According to Warner and April (2012), the
ability to both give and accept support was a core enabler of resilience. We
focused on behavioral strategies relevant to the work environment that were
commonly identified in resilience literature: the availability of social sup-
port (the degree to which one receives support from others and has strong
social networks), individual renewal strategies (characterized by deliberate
practices to renew energy depleted by stress, such as physical activity), and
creating positive relationships (through respect, authenticity, and providing
support to others).
Openness to experience, one of the “big five” personality dimensions
(e.g., McCrae & John, 1992), has been related to stress or related constructs,
such as burnout (e.g., Alarcon, Eschleman & Bowling, 2009; Baer & Old-
ham, 2006). Williams, Rau, Cribbet, and Gunn (2009) found a relationship
between openness to experience and stress regulation, such that individuals
high in openness to experience have greater stress resilience. These results
seem to indicate the individuals high in openness to experiences have greater
receptivity to their environment. This trait presumably predisposes them to
view change as less of a threat, thus creating less stress when change does
occur.
Methods, Results, and Application

Because many of the scales contained new items or were new measures, a
multistep approach was taken for measurement instrument development.
The instrument’s psychometric properties were tested with an initial sample,
adjusted, and cross-validated with a second dataset.
Initial Measurement Development

The initial sample was limited to employees exempt from the Fair Labor
Standard Act (Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938), which is the population
for whom the measurement instrument and related change readiness pro-
gram were developed. A random sample of 1,659 employees was invited
to participate via an email invitation, utilizing a third-party survey service
provider. The questionnaire was described as being for research purposes
only. Complete questionnaires were received from 784 respondents (47% re-
sponse rate). Demographic representation of the respondents was similar to
the population from which the sample was drawn (e.g., tenure, age, gender).
Of the 784 respondents, 221 (28.2%) supervised at least one employee. Addi-
tional demographics are not provided to protect confidentiality of company
information.
The questionnaire consisted of 46 items, which were intended to assess
seven dimensions:
1. Agility (fourteen items)
2. Resilience (nine items)
3. Individual renewal (three items; behavioral actions)
4. Collaboration (eight items; collaboration outside of one’s own team or
department)
5. Creating positive relationships (four items; support provided to others)
6. Openness to experience (three items)
7. Social support (five items; support received from others)
Participants were instructed to “Please use the rating scale below to indicate
how accurately each statement describes you. Describe yourself as you gener-
ally are now, not as you wish to be. Describe yourself honestly, knowing that
your responses will be kept confidential. Please read each statement carefully,
and then select the response that best fits you.” Responses to each item were
on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = very inaccurate, 2 = inaccurate, 3 =
neither accurate nor inaccurate, 4 = accurate, 5 = very accurate).
The scales for agility and resilience were created for our change readi-
ness assessment. Consistent with the definition of agility, the 14-item scale
included two subscales (five items related to monitoring the environment

and anticipating need for change, and nine items related to proactively act-
ing and initiating change). A scale for individual renewal (the extent to which
one takes action, such as taking breaks from work to stay energized and re-
duce stress, relevant to the work context) was also created. Although the term
“individual renewal” may be new, the concept is not (American Psycholog-
ical Association, 2016). There are existing measures for collaboration; how-
ever, they did not align with the current definition (collaboration with others
outside of one’s own team or department), and therefore, a scale was also de-
veloped. Openness to new experience, social support, and creating positive
relationships scales were adapted from existing measures (Barrera, Sandler
& Ramsay, 1981; Goldberg et al., 2006; International Personality Item Pool,
n.d.; Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988), with adjustments made for use
in a workplace context.
Initial Measurement Model

The initial sample was randomly divided into two datasets, each consist-
ing of 392 respondents. Using the first dataset, exploratory factor anal-
ysis (EFA) was used to examine the psychometric properties of the in-
strument (Brown, 2006; Van Prooijen & Van der Kloot, 2001). Data
were analyzed by the method of principal-components analysis with vari-
max rotation. Initial results indicated a latent structure consisting of nine
components, partially corresponding to the intended seven. Two of the com-
ponents comprised items from various scales and, therefore, were removed
from the model. Results also indicated the need for improvement, with
some items having unsatisfactorily low loadings on the intended component
(e.g., less than .50) and/or high cross-loadings on different components (e.g.,
greater than .35). Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha estimates of internal relia-
bility were performed for each component to assist in scale adjustment. The
subscales for agility were not supported, with items either loading together
or loading on one of the two components that were removed. The remain-
ing seven components aligned with the proposed measurement model. After
making adjustments, the measure consisted of 33 items. Internal reliability
for each scale was above .70.
Using the remaining 392 responses from the initial sample, factor anal-
ysis was repeated to confirm results of the adjusted model. The analysis re-
sulted in the same seven-factor solution with all items loading similar to the
initial, adjusted model. The analysis accounted for 63.0% of the total vari-
ance, and item factor loadings were .50 or above on the intended scale, with
no cross-loadings of greater than .35. Internal reliability estimates for each
scale were above .70. Table 1 includes the final scales and corresponding item
Table 1. Factor Loadings for All Measures in Final Model
Factor
Scale definition and number of items loadings
Agility (5 items) Factor 1

The skill to proactively create opportunities or overcome obstacles by
rethinking or redefining typical approaches. Agility involves monitoring
the current environment to anticipate change and responding in a timely
and effective way when changing circumstances require it.
1. At work, I continuously spend time thinking about how we can do .75
things differently.
2. I am always thinking about what we need to do differently to meet .73
upcoming change.
3. I push others/my team to continuously make changes based on what is .72
happing in the company.
4. In the last month, I have proposed a change about our work to my .66
leader.
5. I continuously work to understand what is going on in other areas to .55
see if I need to make changes in what I’m doing.
Resilience (6 items) Factor 2
The emotional and psychological transition related to change, responding
effectively to either mitigate stress caused by the change, or manage or
reduce increased stress.
1. I quickly adapt to new ways of doing things and/or new work .79
assignments.
2. I easily change course when needed. .72
3. I find it easy to adapt to changing situations. .68
4. I am able to shift focus and activities quickly in response to changing .66
organizational priorities.
5. I enjoy experimenting and trying new things. .59
6. I bounce back quickly when confronted with setbacks. .50
Collaboration (5 items) Factor 3
The extent to which one interacts with others outside of one’s own team or
department, openly sharing knowledge, expertise, and in including other
areas in decision making.
1. I seek out collaboration with other departments/teams. .79
2. I readily provide help to other organizations when they need it. .77
3. When making decisions, I take special care to include other areas that .66
may be impacted.
4. I collaborate for the good of the company as a whole rather than .65
focusing on my own area.
5. I acknowledge and discuss tensions that exist between .51
departments/teams in my organization.
Table 1. Continued
Factor
Scale definition and number of items loadings
Creating positive relationships (6 items) Factor 4

The extent to which one builds trusting and productive relationships
through supportive, authentic interactions.
1. I always support my colleagues or fellow team members. .82
2. I get along well with others. .78
3. I make myself available for others who want to talk to me. .74
4. I am direct but courteous when giving others feedback. .68
5. I respect and support the decisions made by my group. .60
6. I am good at working in a group. .53
Social support (5 items) Factor 5
The availability of social support at work that facilitates emotional support
to the individual.
1. I have someone at work I can speak with confidentially for guidance. .81
2. When faced with concerns at work, I don’t feel alone, I have peers I .76
trust to talk with.
3. At work, I talk with people more than just about work, like personal .75
interests and outside hobbies.
4. I have strong social connections at work. .71
5. I feel like I am part of a team. .66
Individual renewal (3 items) Factor 6
The act of employing strategies to build available and renewable capacity
for sustained physical or mental activity.
1. I take regular breaks during the day to renew and recharge. .84
2. When I find myself feeling overwhelmed at work I take a break to clear .81
my mind.
3. I do things to take care of myself, such as eating a healthy diet, .56
exercising and getting plenty of sleep.
Openness to experience (3 items) Factor 7
Openness to experience, ability to consider multiple perspectives and
accept change as a natural part of life.
1. I like reading or hearing opinions that are different from my way of .80
thinking.
2. I find it easy to consider opinions that differ from my own. .78
3. I see change as a natural part of life. .62
factor loadings. Table 2 includes the mean, standard deviation, and internal
reliability of each scale, along with correlations.
Measurement Model Cross-Validation

The cross-validation sample consisted of 715 participants from the change
readiness program for which the instrument was developed. These data were
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Internal Reliability
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Agility 3.75 0.66 (.80)

2. Resilience 4.07 0.54 .50 (.85)
3. Collaboration 4.12 0.56 .54 .45 (.82)
4. Creating positive 4.42 0.45 .34 .56 .52 (.88)
relationships
5. Social support 4.10 0.70 .25 .42 .44 .60 (.85)
6. Individual renewal 3.65 0.83 .10 .28 .16 .25 .27 (.71)
7. Openness to 4.23 0.52 .35 .56 .38 .43 .31 .19 (.71)
experience
Note: All rs > .10, p. < .05. Figures in parentheses are internal reliability estimates, n = 392.
collected over a 4-month period commencing after completion of the ini-

tial measurement model development. Instructions to the participants were
similar to the initial sample except that the questionnaire was described as
being for the change readiness program and participants were provided in-
dividual results reports. The sample demographics were similar to the larger
population (e.g., similar tenure, age, gender) with the exception that there
was greater representation of people leaders, with 77.5% of participants su-
pervising at least one employee.
Factor analysis was conducted to confirm results of the initial measure-
ment model. The analysis resulted in the same seven-factor solution with all
item loadings confirming the measurement model. One agility item had a
factor loading below the desirable level of .50 but with acceptable loadings
across other factors. The analysis accounted for 59.1% of the total variance,
and internal reliability estimates for each scale were above .71. Results were
similar to those shown in Tables 1 and 2. For the cross-validation sample, age
(correlation) and gender (mean difference) were not significantly related to
agility or resilience (p < .05).
Criterion Analysis
Stress data were available on 347 of the initial sample participants. The stress
data were collected approximately 3 months prior to data collection for the
current study, within the general timeframe for which stress data are consid-
ered accurate (making it relevant for the initial sample participants but not
for the cross-validation sample). Stress was assessed by a one-item measure
adopted from the American Psychological Association (e.g., American Psy-
chological Association, 2016): “On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means you have
‘little or no stress’ and 10 means you have ‘a great deal of stress,’ how would
you rate your average levels of stress during the past month?”
Table 3. Main Effects for Resilience and Agility Predicting Stress
Dependent Independent Standard

variable variable b error B T
Stress Resilience –1.30 0.28 –0.28 –4.58

Agility 0.64 0.24 0.16 2.67
F = 10.58; Adjusted R2 = .06.
Table 4. Interaction Effects for Resilience and Agility Predicting Stress
Dependent Independent Standard

variable variable B error B T
Stress Resilience –1.92 0.44 –0.41 –4.35

Agility × Resilience 0.16 0.06 0.26 2.73
F = 10.75; adjusted R2 = .06.
As proposed, resilience was negatively correlated with stress (r = –.20,

p < .05); however, agility was not significantly related to stress (r = .02,
p > .05). This finding supports the premise that resilience can help an in-
dividual function efficiently under the stress of a change (Bridges, 1980;
Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011; Muduli, 2013), noting that the current evidence
is only correlational. Results did not support the proposed relationship of
agility to stress. It is possible that the effort involved in monitoring the cur-
rent environment and initiating change (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011) does
not increase stress, which is contrary to extant literature on the relationship
between change and stress. However, it was noted that, when resilience is
high (i.e., top third on the resilience scale), agility was significantly related
to stress (r = .23, p > .05). For purely exploratory purposes, an analysis was
conducted to test for an interaction effect between agility and resilience. If
agility and resilience are both related to change, with one increasing the re-
lated stress and the other decreasing it, it is reasonable that they may interact.
Main effects are shown in Table 3. Contrary to the correlation analysis,
both resilience (b = –1.30, p < .05) and agility (b = 0.64, p < .05) predicted
stress when entered together in the regression analysis. As noted in Table 4,
the interaction effect (b = 0.16, p < .05) was significant beyond the main
effect of resilience (b = –1.92, p < .05) but was not significant when both re-
silience and agility were entered on the first step of the model, prior to enter-
ing the interaction. Although not fully supported by these analyses, Figure 1
shows the nature of the interaction effect: When resilience is practiced at a
high level, there is a relationship between agility and stress; when resilience
is low, stress is high regardless of the agility level. Although this analysis was
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Low Agilty Medium Agility High Agility
Low Resilience Med Resilience High Resilience
Figure 1. Stress (y axis) by agility × resilience interaction.
exploratory and requires additional research, these findings imply that re-
silience on its own is an important focus for practitioners and even of greater
importance under conditions of high agility and change.
Standardized supervisor performance ratings were available on 674 of
the cross-validation sample participants. Performance ratings were collected
throughout the year as a routine business practice. The performance ratings
had significant, negative skewness (–.311) and range restriction, with a low
frequency of ratings on the low end of the performance scale. Therefore,
analysis included only above average performance and average performance
ratings, creating a dichotomous variable. (No descriptive information is
provided to protect confidentiality of company information.) As proposed,
there was a significant difference in agility for above average performance
(M = 67th percentile, SD = 24.24%) and average performance (M = 62nd
percentile, SD = 26.39%); t (672) = –2.408, p = .01. (Note: In practice, agility
scores are reported in percentile using initial sample as normative database.)
Resilience was not significantly related to performance, as expected. We have
replicated these results multiple times, including an analysis using the initial
development sample (not shown). Agility has been described as critical to
business success and of growing importance to leaders. These results sug-
gest that, within Humana, supervisors, either implicitly or explicitly, con-
sider agility in evaluating performance.
Correlate Analysis
Using data from the initial sample, as proposed, agility was positively related
to collaboration (r = .54, p < .05), and resilience was positively related to so-
cial support (r = .42, p < .05), individual renewal (r = .28, p < .05), creating
positive relationships (r = .56, p < .05), and openness to new experience (r =
.56, p < .05). However, review of Table 2 shows that all of the measures were
correlated. First, this can be interpreted as consistent with literature that has
sometimes attributed common characteristics to both agility and resilience,
as highlighted by McCann et al. (2009). Alternatively, the findings may be
attributable to all variables being measured via a single administration, self-
report instrument, resulting in common method variance artificially inflat-
ing the relationships (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
The true nature of the relationships may be a mix of these factors. To
help clarify, stepwise regression was conducted on both resilience and agility,
allowing all variables to enter the equation. Agility was predicted by collab-
oration (b = 0.47, p < .05) and resilience (b = 0.39, p < .05); F = 229.58,
adjusted R2 = .39. Resilience was predicted by creating positive relationships
(b = 0.32, p <.05), openness to new experience (b = 0.31, p < .05), agility (b
= 0.22, p < .05), individual renewal (b = 0.08, p < .05), and social support (b
= 0.05, p <.05); F = 163.64, adjusted R2 = .51. These analyses were repeated
with the cross-validation sample. Findings were consistent, except that indi-
vidual renewal and social support did not enter in the regression equation
for predicting resilience. These findings are also consistent with the literature
and proposed relationships.
If the correlates to resilience are antecedents, their relationship to stress
should be mediated. Each of the correlates (creating positive relationships,
openness to new experience, individual renewal, and social support) had
significant bivariate relationships to stress, ranging from r = –.13 to –.27,
p < .05. When entered individually on regression analysis, after resilience,
only individual renewal continued to have a significant relationship to stress
(R2 = .09, resilience b = –0.13, individual renewal b = –0.23, p <.05), indi-
cating that, if it is an antecedent, it also has a direct effect on stress.
Figure 2 summarizes the theoretical psychometric model guiding the in-
strument used in the change readiness program. These results indicate that
individual agility, similar to organizational agility, is related to performance,
while it also has a relationship to resilience and stress. Results indicate that a
focus on agility without a focus on resilience could lead to negative impact on
employees with increased stress levels and, ultimately, less than optimal re-
sults. Results also suggest that practitioners should focus on the antecedents
or correlates that help build individual agility and resilience. It is suggested
that, prior to use, practitioners test the validity of this model in their own
organizations, just as the model will continue to be researched and refined
for use in Humana.
Incorporating the Assessment Into Program Design

Upon registering for the change readiness program, participants are sent
a link to complete the agility/resilience assessment 3 weeks prior to their
Antecedents Resilience and agility Consequences
Individual
Collaboration Agility
Performance
Agility /
Resilience
Interaction
Openness to Experiences
Positive Relationships Resilience Stress
Social Support
Individual
Renewal
Figure 2. Measurement instrument theoretical model for use in practice.
Less Agile More Agile
People who demonstrate less agility typically: People who demonstrate more agility typically:
• prefer rounes to diﬀerent approaches • handle shiing priories and rapid
• do not anticipate or respond eﬀecvely to change easily
changes from their surrounding environment • proacvely plan for major changes in
situaons
Figure 3. Individual assessment report scale example.
scheduled program date. Assessment administration and delivery of results

are fully automated. Results are sent to participants 2 days prior to class and
include a brief description of percentile ranks, a reminder that this is a self-
assessment (how they evaluate their own actions and attitudes), and tips for
interpretation and reflection. Individual scale results include a description of
the scale and their scores presented as percentile rank. The percentile rank
is represented as a circle on a line with a brief descriptor on each end. Each
scale also includes behavioral descriptors regarding what “less” and “more”
of the characteristic may look like (Figure 3).
Representing results this way was a lesson learned for us. We quickly
found that people were reacting negatively to low percentile scores, and we
were spending too much time explaining percentile ranks, self-assessment,
and why individuals may be misinterpreting their own self-evaluations. An-
other important item we learned was to link the program design tightly
to the assessment so that each program section addressed a portion of the
assessment (e.g., concepts, tools, tips for improvement, etc.). Program facili-
tators review results early in the learning experience so that participants can
understand their own results and focus on what they need to work on during
the program. Participants are encouraged to share their results and insights
with others, and we offer group results for intact teams. Our program eval-
uation results indicate that employees prefer attending the program as an
intact team. It seems that group discussions are more candid and often lead
to insights that allow employees to take action as a team.
Initial Organizational Impact

After developing a deployment and marketing strategy, we have delivered
the change readiness program and assessment to over 1,200 employees. Our
initial evaluation of the program has been encouraging. First, we have expe-
rienced very positive feedback and tremendous pull for the program across
the enterprise. Second, test–retest results (after 3–4 months) have shown in-
creased scores in nearly every assessment dimension. Finally, we have com-
pleted Level 3 evaluations (transfer of learning and behavioral change; Kirk-
patrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) on a sample of employees (just over 300 with
107 respondents) 6 months post-program. Our results show over 70% agree-
ment in applying learned concepts and navigating change more effectively,
and 54% agreement when asked whether their team and/or customers have
been positively impacted as a result of the program.
Discussion
A recent survey found that 91% of over 300 participating companies
responded that they were experiencing significant change defined as M&A,
significant restructuring, or senior leader transition (Corporate Executive
Board, 2016), and our organization is certainly no different. This same
study found that of the thousands of leaders surveyed, only about one-third
of them were adapting quickly enough to keep pace with their shifting
strategy and business goals. It is all too apparent that leaders today are
faced with increased uncertainty as markets and industries encounter faster
and more complex change than ever before. This environment demands
a fundamental shift in how leaders manage change—one that requires
a workforce equipped with the agility and resilience that leads to more
positive responses to change. This research provides a psychometrically
sound measure to assess employee agility and resilience. Practical uses
of this measure include building self-awareness of one’s own agility and
resilience that can be used in HR training and interventions, particularly
with individual change readiness.
Our overall results suggest that individual resilience can mitigate the
stress associated with the increased demand for agility. That finding alone
could have a tremendous impact on a company’s organizational health as
well as its profitability. Additional research is needed to determine how to de-

velop individual resilience, including incorporating mindfulness and other
techniques and strategies, and how to assess the impact of these interventions
on other business indicators such as a reduction in absenteeism or reduced
resistance to change. Ultimately, longitudinal research is needed that links
workforce agility with organizational profitability, effectiveness, and adapt-
ability to rapid change.
Additional Lessons Learned

Developing measurement scales in an applied setting can present some
unique challenges for practitioners. On one hand, it is always advantageous
to validate an instrument with a sample from the target population. On
the other hand, when trying to avoid the use of questionnaire data, which
can lead to false conclusions (Podsakoff et al., 2003), it can be a challenge
to access appropriate, criterion-type data for use in the validation analyses.
For the current study, we were fortunate that stress data were available, and
that they had been collected within a timeframe near enough to our study
to make it valid. Performance ratings are an additional challenge. As with
most corporate performance ratings, our data had range restrictions, with
ratings skewed to the lower end of performance. To compensate, the rat-
ings were converted to a dichotomous variable, removing the below-average
ratings. These ratings are also collected throughout the year, which results
in some ratings being “older” than others. Therefore, to build confidence in
the conclusions, our analysis has been replicated multiple times as groups
of employees take the assessment. One criteria variable likely available in
most organizations is employee turnover, but that, of course, requires both
a longitudinal study and theoretical relevance. With a little creativity and
work, criterion-type data are likely available within practitioners’ organiza-
tions in one form or another. Recognizing that the data will often be less than
perfect, any analysis plan should control for this by using techniques such as
replication to ensure the findings are valid.
Some of the instrument’s scales represent skills that can be directly de-
veloped, whereas others represent tendencies or dispositions used to create
awareness and, possibly, the development of tactics to ensure these tenden-
cies do not hamper effectiveness. In practice, making this distinction clear to
program participants can be challenging. Employees sometimes react to the
trait-type scales rather than accepting the assessment as feedback for self-
awareness. To increase likelihood of acceptance of assessment results and
effective development plans, a few considerations include the following:
1. Timing: Distributing assessment results far enough in advance of the

change readiness class to allow initial reactions to subside but not so far
in advance to allow misinterpretation of results to get ingrained or lead
to ineffective action. Otherwise, we have found that some participants

are fixated on their results rather than what they can do to change them.
We have found that 2 business days is optimal.
2. Communication: Beginning with the individual feedback report, pro-
viding clear directions on what to do with the results and what not to do,
and encouraging participants to wait until they attend the class before
making any behavioral changes is critical.
3. Facilitation: The sensitive content of the change readiness program, in-
cluding the assessment results, requires a unique facilitation skillset.
Program participants often (and are encouraged to) relate what they are
learning to personal change they experience in their daily lives, which
can be a powerful personal and group experience. We have found that
facilitators must be prepared to handle these responses effectively.
We have also discovered additional benefits of the assessment, beyond its

initial objectives. Because the program (and assessment) has been delivered
to a number of intact teams, which has been the preference of participants,
we have found that leaders are interested in exploring their team’s agility.
This has interesting practical implications for organizations as a whole. Iden-
tifying business functions with higher agility levels can help influence cor-
porate strategy by targeting strategic transformations for areas that may be
primed to absorb change more quickly. In addition, the instrument may also
serve as a needs assessment that allows organizations to identify groups with
low agility and/or resilience, and who could benefit from additional training.
Today’s business environment is increasingly unpredictable and ever
changing. Organizations across all industries are experiencing mounting
pressure to react quickly to changing customer demands, market condi-
tions, or new technology. By building organizational agility, or what some
researchers have referred to as “adaptive capacity” (McCann et al., 2009),
organizations may be better equipped to manage or moderate change,
volatility, and uncertainty. A critical component of any organizational strat-
egy to build agility is shifting individuals from fear of change to excitement
about new opportunities or expanding skills. Developing individual agility
and resilience has the potential to complement current change management
strategies to help organizations execute strategy and accelerate performance.
Organizations that disrupt their environment without this capability may do
so at their own risk.
References
Alarcon, G., Eschleman, K. J., & Bowling, N. A. (2009). Relationships between personality variables
and burnout: A meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 23(3), 244–263.
American Psychological Association. (2016). Stress in America: The impact of discrimination.

Stress in AmericaTM Survey. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/
2015/impact-of-discrimination.pdf
Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure
and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963–970.
Barrera, M., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsay, T. B. (1981). Preliminary development of a scale of social sup-
port: Studies on college students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(4), 435–447.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of con-
textual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations
(pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bridges, W. (1980). Transitions: Making sense of life’s changes. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brisson-Banks, C. (2010). Managing change and transitions: A comparison of different models and
their commonalities. Library Management, 31, 241–252.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.
Charbonnier-Voirin, A. (2011). The development and partial testing of the psychometric properties
of a measurement scale of organizational agility. M@n@gement, 14, 119–156.
Cohen-Katz, J., Wiley, S., Capuano, T., Baker, D. M., & Shapiro, S. (2004, November/December). The
effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on nurse stress and burnout: A qualitative and
quantitative study. Holistic Nursing Practice, 18(6), 302–308.
Corporate Executive Board. (2016). Executive guidance: Driving performance in volatile mar-
kets. Retrieved from https://www.cebglobal.com/content/dam/cebglobal/us/EN/top-insights/
executive-guidance/pdfs/eg2017ann-driving-performance-in-volatile-markets.pdf
Coutu, D. L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 46–55.
Etzion, D. (1984). Moderating effect of social support on the stress–burnout relationship. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69(4), 615–622.
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. (June 25, 1938, ch. 676, §1, 52 Stat. 1060).
Goh, J., Pfeffer, L., & Zenios, S. (2016). The relationship between workplace stressors and mortality
and health costs in the United States. Management Science, 62(2), 608–628.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough,
H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain person-
ality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the con-
servation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1134–1145.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. (2006). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspec-
tives (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hunter, J., & McCormick, D. W. (2008). Mindfulness in the workplace: An exploratory study. In S.
E. Newell (Facilitator), Weickian ideas. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of Advanced
Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences. N.d. Retrieved from http:
//ipip.ori.org/
Jorgensen, H., Owen, L., & Neus, A. (2008). IBM global making change work study. Retrieved from
http://www7.ibm.com/au/pdf/making_change_work.pdf
Kanter, R. M. (1999). Change is everyone’s job: Managing the extended enterprise in a globally con-
nected world. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 7–23.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Four levels of training evaluation (1st ed.). Alexandria,
VA: ATD Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Accelerate! Harvard Business Review, 90(11), 45–58.
McCann, J., Selsky, J., & Lee, J. (2009). Building agility, resilience and performance in turbulent envi-
ronments. People & Strategy, 32(3), 44–51.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications.
Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.
McKinsey. (2010). Competing through organizational agility. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.
com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/competing-through-organizational-agility
Mento, A., Jones, R., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in both
theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3, 45–59.
Muduli, A. (2013). Workforce agility: A review of literature. The IUP Journal of Management Research,
12(3), 55–65.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.
Journal of applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Project Management Institute. (2012). Pulse of the profession in-depth report: Organiza-
tional agility. Retrieved from https://www.pmi.org/∼/media/PDF/Research/Organizational-
Agility-In-Depth-Report.ashx
Reivich, K. J., Seligman, M. E. P., & McBride, S. (2011). Master resilience training in the U.S. Army.
American Psychologist, 66(1), 25–34.
Robertson, P. J., Roberts, D. R., & Porras, J. I. (1993). Dynamics of planned organizational change:
Assessing empirical support for a theoretical model. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3),
619–634. doi:10.2307/256595
Schwartz, T., & McCarthy, C. (2007). Manage your energy, not your time. Harvard Business Review,
85(10), 63–73.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Building resilience. Harvard Business Review, 89(4), 100–106.
Southwick, S. M., & Charney, D. S. (2013). Ready for anything. Scientific American Mind, 24(3), 32–
41.
Van Prooijen, J., & Van der Kloot, W. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor
structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 777–792.
Warner, R., & April, K. (2012). Building personal resilience at work. Effective Executive, 15(4), 53–68.
Williams, P. G., Rau, H. K., Cribbet, M. R., & Gunn, H. E. (2009). Openness to experience and stress
regulation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 777–784.
Wolf, J. A. (2011). Constructing rapid transformation: Sustaining high performance and a new view
of organization change. International Journal of Training and Development, 15(1), 20–38.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of per-
ceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Development, Validation, A PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development, Validation, A PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), pp 702–722 December 2017.

Copyright © 2017 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. doi:10.1017/iop.2017.79

The Development, Validation, and Practical

The complexity and speed of an increasingly turbulent business environ-

systems/technology, consolidation, etc.) is transforming America’s health-

(2011) asserts, “Models of planned change may no longer be sufficient to

$300 billion annually as a result of accidents, absenteeism, employee

in order to remain effective, making change a natural part of organizational

r Alexander Alonso, Society for Human Resource Management

Definitions, Correlates, and Criterion

Definitions and Criterion

both agility and resilience. In 7 of the 10 studies highlighted by Charbonnier-

Methods, Results, and Application

Initial Measurement Development

included two subscales (five items related to monitoring the environment

Initial Measurement Model

Table 1. Factor Loadings for All Measures in Final Model

Agility (5 items) Factor 1

Creating positive relationships (6 items) Factor 4

Measurement Model Cross-Validation

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Internal Reliability

1. Agility 3.75 0.66 (.80)

collected over a 4-month period commencing after completion of the ini-

Table 3. Main Effects for Resilience and Agility Predicting Stress

Dependent Independent Standard

Stress Resilience –1.30 0.28 –0.28 –4.58

F = 10.58; Adjusted R2 = .06.

Table 4. Interaction Effects for Resilience and Agility Predicting Stress

Dependent Independent Standard

Stress Resilience –1.92 0.44 –0.41 –4.35

F = 10.75; adjusted R2 = .06.

As proposed, resilience was negatively correlated with stress (r = –.20,

Figure 1. Stress (y axis) by agility × resilience interaction.

Incorporating the Assessment Into Program Design

Antecedents Resilience and agility Consequences

Figure 2. Measurement instrument theoretical model for use in practice.

Less Agile More Agile

Figure 3. Individual assessment report scale example.

scheduled program date. Assessment administration and delivery of results

Initial Organizational Impact

well as its profitability. Additional research is needed to determine how to de-

Additional Lessons Learned

1. Timing: Distributing assessment results far enough in advance of the

to ineffective action. Otherwise, we have found that some participants

We have also discovered additional benefits of the assessment, beyond its

American Psychological Association. (2016). Stress in America: The impact of discrimination.

You might also like