309 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 | 309-338
CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? 
EXPLORING THE CONCEPTS OF INDIVIDUAL 
CHANGE READINESS AND RESISTANCE TO 
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
EV A REPOVŠ
1
 
MATEJA DRNOVŠEK
2
 Received: July 1, 2018 
ROBERT KAŠE
3
 Accepted: March 27, 2019
ABSTRACT: This paper is a qualitative review of two concepts: change readiness and 
resistance to change. We review their use, clarify their conceptual underpinnings, and address 
the assumption of them being the opposite poles of the same continuum. We juxtapose the 
two concepts and analyze their dimensions which commonly represent a source of ambiguity 
about their meaning, review their evolution, and compare them to similar concepts. We 
argue that resistance to change addresses two important aspects: resistance as behavior and 
resistance as attitude. We argue that because resistance to change and change readiness share 
attitudinal roots, they should be looked at in conjunction – not on a bipolar continuum but 
as coexisting orthogonal dimensions – to grasp the full complexity of change-related attitudes. 
We discuss implications and offer guidance for future research.
Key words: change readiness, resistance to change, review, framework, orthogonal
JEL classification: O15
DOI: 10.15458/85451.82
1 INTORDUCTION
Employee attitudes toward change are a key factor that determines the success of an 
organization's change efforts (Elias, 2009). Identified as critical for implementing 
planned change (e.g., Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994) the concept of change readiness 
strongly permeates the organizational change literature. Presumably presenting the same 
phenomenon from the opposite perspective (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993), 
resistance to change has been one of the most frequently cited reasons for why firms fail 
to implement change (Anuradha & Kelloway, 2004). According to Bouckenooghe (2010), 
1 Corresponding author, University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: 
eva.repovs@ef.uni-lj.si
2 University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: mateja.drnovsek@
ef.uni-lj.si
3 University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: robert.kase@ef.uni-lj.si

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 310
more than 90% of the conceptual work on change attitudes has been done either on change 
readiness or resistance to change.
Indeed, the two concepts frequently appear in conjunction
4
 in the literature, mostly 
represented as two opposite poles of a continuum (e.g., Salleh et al., 2011). However, calls 
for the clarifications of both concepts that have been raised many times (e.g., Dent & 
Goldberg, 1999) suggest this might have been an unnecessary simplification. Moreover, 
as the interest in employee attitudes toward change has grown, so has the number of 
other concepts that appear along the change process, such as openness to change, change 
cynicism, and others. Depending on their positive or negative valence toward change, they 
have interfered or have been used as synonyms for either change readiness or resistance 
to change. This process resulted in the proliferation of concepts and confusion. Stevens 
(2013), for example, borrowed Block's (1995) expression of “jingle and jangle fallacies” to 
capture the pool of change readiness conceptualizations.
The goal of our review paper is twofold. First, we aim to clarify the concepts of resistance 
to change and change readiness along with interactions among them in order to facilitate 
further development of this interesting body of knowledge. Only a clear understanding 
of the concepts’ meanings provides firm ground for sound theorizing and clarifies 
incommensurability issues. Second, our goal is to show that resistance to change and 
change readiness need to be inspected simultaneously to grasp the full complexity of 
change-related attitudes. We argue that employee attitudes toward organizational change 
are not as black-and-white as originally assumed.
W e confront the concepts of resistance to change and change readiness, and simultaneously 
analyze their dimensions to clarify ambiguity about what these concepts are and what they 
are not. W e first review the evolution of both concepts through time by (a) inspecting their 
cognitive, affective, intentional, and behavioral aspects, and (b) presenting the evolution 
of theoretical approaches regarding the origin of the concepts. Next, we clarify the focal 
concepts by (a) further exploring the dimensions of an attitude, (b) applying both focal 
concepts to stages of change, and (c) comparing them to other, similar concepts. We 
conclude with a discussion and directions for future research.
2 THE EVOLUTION OF THE USES OF BOTH CONCEPTS THROUGH TIME
The first observation regarding organizational change literature is that resistance to change 
began to appear much earlier than change readiness and also trumps change readiness in 
the number of total publications (123 vs. 462) (see Figure 1 in Appendix). This is not 
surprising because people naturally resist change as it concerns moving from the known 
to the unknown (Coghlan, 1993). The introduction of the term resistance to change is 
4 Change readiness and resistance to change have largely been used interchangeably, depending on which valence 
was more convenient (resistance for negative and readiness for positive valence).

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 311
credited to Kurt Lewin (1947). The term appeared in the first stage of his three-stage 
change model: the “unfreezing” stage, referring to the application of an additional force 
to break employees’ social habits (Burnes & Bargal, 2017), current mental models, and 
behavior. However, Lewin “introduced the term as a systems concept, as a force affecting 
managers and employees equally” that could be found and rooted anywhere within the 
system of roles, norms, attitudes, and other factors—the psychology of the humans being 
just one element of it (Dent & Goldberg, 1999, p. 25). Interestingly, the first reference 
to resistance to change was made by McMurry (1947), with “The problem of Resistance 
to Change in Industry,” and the second by Coch and French (1948) in a paper titled 
“Overcoming Resistance to Change, ” followed by other works all offering prescriptions to 
fight against resistance (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). It seems that authors aimed to prevent 
or overcome resistance to change as soon as it was recognized to exist. Despite resistance 
to change being the longest-present and probably the best-known attitude toward change 
in the literature (Bouckenooghe, 2010), Dent and Goldberg (1999) observed in their 
comprehensive review it was not well-defined and frequently lacked definition.
The concept of change readiness, on the other hand, was introduced more recently. 
Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) define it and propose a model for creating 
change readiness at the individual level in 1993. In earlier literature, change readiness 
was not conceptually differentiated from resistance and can be traced in discussions with 
regard to reducing change resistance (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993).
In search of ways to prevent resistance, calls for the retirement of resistance to change have 
been raised; however, resistance to change perseveres, together with the growing body of 
literature on change readiness from 1993 on. A review of publications published in the 
year 2017 reveals that 24 publications dealt with resistance to change compared to only 
eight dealing with change readiness.
Despite the popularity of both concepts and their interconnectedness, a search
5
 for 
publications dealing with both concepts simultaneously resulted in a surprisingly low 
number of publications. Only three publications
6
 address the two concepts at the same 
time: the Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder paper from 1993 aiming to differentiate 
5 We searched the Social Sciences Citation Index edition of the Web of Science Core Collection database. 
Publications of document types article, review, proceedings paper, and book chapter, written in English between 
1900 and 2018 (June) were included. We searched the database for works with the words “change readiness” 
or “readiness for change” in their abstracts, titles, or keywords for the first concept of our interest, and “change 
resistance”, “resistance to change”, or “resistance toward* change” for the second. The search was undertaken 
using the Web of Science categories, namely Management, Psychology Applied, Psychology Multidisciplinary, 
Psychology,  Business, Social Sciences Interdisciplinary, Psychology Social, and Behavioral Sciences.
6 These three publications are: (1) Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W . (1993). Creating readiness 
for organizational change. Human relations, 46(6), 681-703; (2) Michel, A., Todnem By, R., & Burnes, B. (2013). 
The limitations of dispositional resistance in relation to organizational change. Management Decision, 51(4), 
761-780; (3) Salleh, H., Alshawi, M., Sabli, N. A. M., Zolkafli, U. K., & Judi, S. S. (2011). Measuring readiness 
for successful information technology/information system (IT/IS) project implementation: A conceptual model. 
African Journal of Business Management, 5(23), 9770-9778. 3).

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 312
change readiness from resistance, and two empirical papers which do not attempt to 
differentiate or consolidate the two concepts. This observation, in addition to the pivotal 
role the two concepts have in the broader change management literature, supports the 
need for our review.
2.1 A review of conceptualizations
As we dig into conceptualizations of resistance to change and change readiness, different 
paths in their evolutions can be detected. Below, we list (see T ables 1 and 2) and review their 
conceptualizations. We discuss their evolution addressing the four different dimensions of 
employee responses toward change: cognitive, affective, intentional, and behavioral. 
With the behavioral dimension we denote actual behavior. For the intentional dimension, 
we follow Piderit’s (2000, p. 787) understanding of “an intention” in his debate on attitudes 
toward an organizational change that denotes “a plan or resolution to take some action, 
rather than a plan to try to achieve some goal (Bagozzi, 1992)” . This understanding is in 
line with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) and the tripartite attitude model 
(Smith, 1947), on which our theorizing is based on. Moreover, our aim is not to observe 
what the goal of a dimension is. W e draw on the assumption that humans as rational beings 
will always act rationally - with an intention.
7
 The cognitive dimension refers to beliefs, 
thoughts, perceptual responses, and knowledge structures about change (Breckler, 1984). 
The affective dimension refers to feelings about change. Eagly and Chaiken (1998, p. 272) 
define this dimension as “feelings, moods, emotions, and sympathetic nervous-system 
activity that people have experienced in relation to an attitude object and subsequently 
associate with it. ”
Table 1: An overview of resistance to change definitions
Source Definition Dimension
Zander (1950, p. 9) “Behavior which is intended 
to protect an individual from 
the effects of real or imagined 
change. ”
Behavioral
Argyris (1985, p. 5) “Thoughts and actions used to 
protect individuals', groups', 
and organizations' usual way of 
dealing with reality. ”
Cognitive, and behavioral
Brower & Abolafia (1995, p. 151) A particular kind of “action or 
intentional inaction. ”
Behavioral
7 Acting “rationally” in the social sciences usually means “acting with instrumental rationality – doing what will 
get you whatever ends you wish to achieve, whether they are in your best interest or not (Korsgaard, n.d.).

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 313
Source Definition Dimension
Ashforth & Mael (1998, p. 90) “Intentional acts of commission 
or omission that defy the wishes 
of others. ”
Behavioral
Folger & Skarlicki (1999, p. 36) “Employees’ behaviour that 
seeks to challenge, or disrupt 
the prevailing assumptions, 
discourses, and power relations. ”
Behavioral
Herscovitch (2003, p. 14) “Employee action or inaction that 
is intended to avoid a change and/
or interfere with the successful 
implementation of a change in its 
current form. ”
Behavioral 
del Val & Fuentes (2003) “ Any set of intentions and actions 
that slows down or hinders the 
implementation of change. ”
Intentional, and behavioral
Oreg (2006, p. 76) “Tri-dimensional (negative) 
attitude towards change, which 
includes affective, behavioural, 
and cognitive components. ”
Affective, cognitive, and 
behavioral or intentional
8
 
The literature focusing on resistance to change departed from the behavioral dimension 
(see Table 1). Researchers describe resistance to change as behavior intended to protect 
recipients from change (e.g., Zander, 1950), and to avoid change (e.g., Herscovitch, 2003). 
Coch and French (1948), the authors who made one of the first references to resistance to 
change, as well use desirable (compliant) behavior as a criterion in their quasi-experiment 
on resistance to change (Piderit, 2000).
In later stages of evolution of resistance to change we spot the intentional dimension was 
added (see del Val and Fuentes, 2003) and finally we arrive to the contemporary definition 
that describes it as a multidimensional attitude (Oreg, 2006).
The cognitive dimension can as well be identified in early definitions (see Argyris, 1985). 
Also, when advising on how to overcome resistance, a “cognitive realignment of resistors' 
espoused theories and their theories-in-use” is recommended (Diamond, 1986, as cited in 
Dent & Goldberg, 1999, p. 786). Also, among the causes of resistance Dent and Goldberg 
(1999) find misunderstanding to be a common cause, exposing its cognitive component. 
Zander (1950), for example, notes that resistance may surface “if the change is open to 
variety of interpretations” or “if the nature of the change is not made clear to the people 
who are going to be influenced by the change” (Dent & Goldberg, 1999, p. 34-35). Lawrence 
(1954) also emphasized management should use understandable terms so that the change 
makes sense to employees. Cognition as a part of the phenomenon can as well be found 
8 To Oreg (2006) the behavioral dimension denotes action or intention to act.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 314
in the early work of Coch and French (1948) discussing participation that might have 
motivational and cognitive effects (Piderit, 2000).
The affective dimension can be found in early descriptions of resistance to change, but not 
in its definitions. Shimoni (2017) notices that Dent and Goldberg (1999) list terms such as 
fear, frustration , emotionality , and innate aggression when discussing resistance to change, 
all of which expose the emotional or affective nature of the concept. Notions of aggression 
can be traced back to the work of Coch and French (1948). In Diamond's (1986) view, the 
underlying nature of resistance to change is highly emotional (Piderit, 2000), even though 
not explicitly noted in its earlier definitions, as opposed to more recent definitions, where 
the affective component is included (e.g., Oreg, 2006). Oreg et al. (2018) describe resistors’ 
responses to change with underlying core affects, such as stressed, angry, and upset.
Table 2: An overview of change readiness definitions
Source Definition Dimension
Armenakis Harris, & Mossholder 
(1993, p. 681)
“Organizational members' beliefs, 
attitudes, and intentions regarding 
the extent to which changes are 
needed and the organization's 
capacity to successfully make 
those changes. ”
Cognitive, affective, and 
intentional
Cunningham et al. (2002, p. 377) It involves “a demonstrable need 
for change, a sense of one's ability 
to successfully accomplish change 
(self-efficacy) and an opportunity 
to participate in the change 
process. ” 
Cognitive
9
 
Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris 
(2007, p. 235)
“The extent to which an 
individual or individuals are 
cognitively and emotionally 
inclined to accept, embrace, 
and adopt a particular plan to 
purposefully alter the status quo. ” 
Cognitive, and affective
Weiner (2009, p. 68) “Organizational readiness for 
change refers to organizational 
members’ change commitment 
and self-efficacy to implement 
organizational change. ” 
Cognitive
9
Holt & Vardaman (2013, p. 9) “The degree to which the 
organization and those involved 
are individually and collectively 
primed, motivated and capable of 
executing change. ” 
Cognitive
9
9 Perhaps not explicitly stated, the definitions of Cunningham et al. (2002), W einer (2009), and Holt & V ardaman 
(2013) describe the cognitive dimension. The concept of self-efficacy is even entailed in the operationalization of 
change readiness discussed in more detail in Section 3.

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 315
In contrast with the beginnings of resistance to change, Armenakis, Harris, and 
Mossholder (1993) explicitly position the core of creating change readiness in changing 
individuals' cognitions, the latter representing a precursor to behaviors regarding change 
efforts. In their view, readiness is “reflected in organizational members' beliefs, attitudes, 
and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization's 
capacity to successfully make those changes” (p. 681). Thus, the change readiness concept 
puts cognitions in the focus of attention from its beginnings.
Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) do not explicitly mention affect in their 
conception of change readiness, but it can be traced in the notion of readiness being an 
attitude because an attitude is comprised of “qualitatively different types of information 
(e.g., affective and cognitive)” (Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994, p. 621). In more recent 
conceptualizations, we can find readiness explicitly defined as consisting of cognition, 
as well as affect. Nevertheless, affect still remains an understudied dimension in change 
readiness research (Rafferty et al., 2013). Some definitions also note intentions but 
not behaviors. Rafferty et al. (2013) conclude intentions should be excluded from the 
conceptualization, since they are indications of how hard one is willing to try and how 
much energy one is willing to invest in order to perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991) 
concerning employees’ motivation .
2.2 Theoretical approaches to studying resistance and readiness to change
Besides dimensions of the focal change concepts, the literature has also put a lot of emphasis 
on the sources of change readiness and change resistance. We draw on Shimoni's (2017) 
grouping of approaches to resistance to change and identify the following evolutional lines 
of the sources of both concepts: (a) deriving from an individual’ s psychological disposition, 
(b) arising from the change context, (c) being a product of interplay between disposition 
and context, and (d) arising from habitus.
The first, and the earliest one — deriving from the individual’s psychological disposition, 
has only been discussed in connection to the concept of resistance to change. This approach 
is also called the traditional approach to resistance to change. The other three approaches 
listed above are relevant for both concepts, thus we adopt them to discuss change readiness 
as well.
2.2.1 An individual's psychological disposition as a source: The traditional approach
Traditionally, scholars approached resistance to change as something rooted exclusively 
within individuals. What people actually resist is not change per se, but letting go of 
something that is familiar. They fear to lose status, pay, or comfort (Dent & Goldberg, 
1999), or even their identity (Karp & Tveteraas Helgø, 2009), seeing change in organizations 
as shifting of identities. Neuroscience complements biologists' findings that the human 
brain is wired against loss (e.g., Cozolino, 2006) – loss aversion – and our brains tell us to 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 316
resist change and save energy if change is not necessary for our survival (Csikszentmihalyi, 
1996).
In his review, Shimoni (2017) notes that organization development scholars and 
practitioners often see resistance to change as pathological — a defensive routine that 
change creators need to defeat. Being something that organizations need to overcome 
also implies the position of the concept in the four-phase reaction process to change that 
individuals go through, according to Scott and Jaffe (1988, as cited by Bovey & Hede, 2001, 
p. 534), being: “initial denial, resistance, gradual exploration, and eventual commitment” . 
The traditional view assumes employees' resistance can be turned into more supportive 
orientation if employees do the best they can (Illouz, 2007) and has been, in Krantz’ s (1999, 
p. 42) opinion, “transformed over the years into a not-so-disguised way of blaming the less 
powerful for unsatisfactory results of change efforts” .
Ford, Ford, and D'Amelio (2008, p. 362) emphasize that the “change agent-centric” view 
that sees change agents as unbiased observers (who do the right thing to overcome the 
objective reality of change recipients who are seen as obstacles resisting the change) should 
be discarded. We should realize that resistance is a result of interactions and relationships 
between change agents and recipients and does not reside completely “over there, in them 
(i.e., in change recipients)” (Ford, Ford, & D'Amelio, 2008, p. 362).
2.2.2 Change context as a source: The social context approach
Recognizing there is more to it than just individuals, scholars began to see resistance as 
a product of the social context. Contextual factors are the circumstances under which 
change occurs and can inhibit or accelerate the effectiveness of change implementation 
(Self, Armenakis, & Schraeder, 2007). Lewin's field theory argues an individual's behavior 
needs to be understood within the context, taking into account all the forces of the life 
space that affect it (Lewin, 1947). 
Ford, Ford, and D' Amelio (2008) advocate for the importance of change agents' role and 
their relationships with employees. Change agents need to be able to restore trust and 
establish fairness, call to action, and communicate effectively to avoid misinterpretation 
that could cause resistance. This factor belongs to the process factors of the change process, 
which include strategies and tactics, justifying organizational change, communicating 
a shared vision, and executive visibility (Self et al., 2007; Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). 
Supporters of this approach see inappropriate organizational cultures as obstacles to or 
enablers of reducing resistance by guiding their members on how to act, perceive, and 
feel (Shimoni, 2017). Often, the organizations' structures are sources of resistance (e.g., 
narrow job categories can force employees to choose between new perspectives and their 
self-interests; Burnes, 2015, Kotter, 1995). Holt and Vardaman (2013) add encouraging 
climate, and reward or incentive systems as relevant structural factors. Kotter (1995) finds 

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 317
individual resistance to be rare and states employees usually understand the new vision 
and desire its realization but are restrained by the system.
The social context approach was used by Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) to 
build foundations of the concept of change readiness on. They acknowledge the contextual 
factors influencing the creation of change readiness, especially the role of change agents 
through influence strategies, such as persuasive communication, management of external 
information, and enabling active participation. Change managers should take the role of 
proactive players instead of trying just to “reactively monitor the workplace for signs of 
resistance” (p. 682), thereby taking the role of proactive change agents as coaches and 
champions of change. Second, they emphasize change readiness is a social phenomenon 
influenced by other peoples' readiness, another factor showing the context-dependency of 
change readiness.
2.2.3 Interplay between an individual's psychological disposition and change context 
as a source: The social construction approach
While the first two approaches view the personal and the social aspects as relatively 
separated (Shimoni, 2017), the social construction approach integrates both. This approach 
returns to Lewin's roots. This time, the whole content, not just the nomenclature, has been 
adopted because Lewin saw the behavior of individuals, groups, and organizations as a 
function of a totality of a life space entailing both — the individual and the environment 
(Burnes & Bargal, 2017). According to Burnes (2015), contextual factors moderate the level 
of dispositional resistance, and organizations being social systems, resistance should be 
seen as emerging from the mutual effects of individuals' and organizations' characteristics. 
In the evolution of the concept of change readiness, the social construction approach was 
adopted as well, recognizing the importance of individual and contextual mutual effects. 
Holt and Vardaman (2013) named them individual factors (psychological) and structural 
factors (the circumstances under which change occurs).
2.2.4 The habitus-oriented approach
Shimoni (2017) acknowledges the advantage of the social construction approach and 
returns to the original Lewin's idea, but criticizes it for ignoring the dynamic nature 
of resistance. Thus, he proposes a habitus-oriented approach to resistance to change. 
He argues that “resistance is a social practice built into the system, produced by social 
agents' habitus, historically developed in constant interactions between human agents and 
social structures in a given social field” (Shimoni, 2017, p. 263). In line with the concept 
of habitus, social agents' behavior is not a direct reaction to external conditions (Swartz, 
2002) but an improvisation of action strategies within structural constraints, also in terms 
of deeply rooted past experiences (Shimoni, 2017). For Shimoni, individuals or groups 
(social agents) are active producers of meaning. Bourdieu (1989) explains that by adopting 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 318
the social structure of organization through the process of socialization, the social structure 
becomes a part of individuals' habitus or social disposition, which influences their thoughts 
and behaviors, including resistance to change (Shimoni, 2017). The habitus approach 
emphasizes the mirroring of organizations' material and symbolic social structures in an 
individual’s cognition. As Shimoni (2017, p. 264) notes, it is “something people learn, and 
once it is learned it 'naturally' affects the way they think and behave. ”
Holt and Vardaman (2013) propose an expanded conceptualization of change readiness 
by incorporating the factor of awareness. They draw on Gondo, Patterson, and Palacios's 
(2013) research on mindfulness, which points out the uselessness of willingness and 
capability of employees in the absence of awareness of the need for change and of their 
routinized or automatic behaviors. With this, we are rapidly approaching the habitus-
oriented approach to resistance, as discussed by Shimoni (2017), incorporating the social 
disposition that influences our thoughts and behaviors, meaning that we are not (fully) 
aware of our routinized behavior.
3 CLARIFYING THE CONCEPTS 
As the review of the evolution of the concepts has shown, the contemporary definitions 
describe change readiness as well as resistance to change as having an attitudinal core. 
However, this still leaves some ambiguity about the entailment of intentions and behavior 
in these two concepts. We discuss the dilemma of whether they should be included 
or excluded from the conception of an attitude and address some other aspects in the 
following subsections to improve the understanding of the focal concepts. 
The tripartite attitude model (Smith, 1947) that led the development of attitude research 
constitutes of three attitude components: the cognitive, the affective, and the conative. 
While the cognitive component clearly denotes the beliefs (e.g., believing the change 
is beneficial), and the affective refers to feelings (e.g., being angry about change) about 
the attitude object (a specific change), the conative component is the most complex of 
all. In some cases also named intentional, in others behavioral, this dimension created 
substantial conceptual confusion. It denotes future intentions to act based on past 
behaviors or experiences with the attitude object. Some studies place more emphasis on 
past experiences and behaviors to reflect evaluations of an attitude object, while others 
criticize this, and focus on intentions, saying that one might not have past experiences 
when responding to a novel event (Piderit, 2000).
However, some researchers (e.g., Oreg, 2006), understand this component as entailing both, 
intentions to act as well as actions (e.g., verbally expressing intentions concerning change 
adoption, trying to convince others that the change is not beneficial). Thus, we identify 
the first source of conceptual confusion, especially concerning resistance to change, in 
different interpretations of the conative component. We need to understand that attitudes 
are a psychological phenomenon and higher-order classes of response to stimuli that 

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 319
cannot be observed directly. Thus, Breckler (1984) sees overt actions as expressions of the 
behavioral dimension. Behavior in a sense of action or intentional inaction was often the 
only dimension in earlier stages of resistance to change definitions, as our review reveals. 
However, intentions, and attitudes in general, do not necessarily end in behavior consistent 
with them (Fazio & Olson, 2007). This brings us to the second important issue in need of 
attention in order to understand our focal concepts better – the attitude-behavior gap. 
Drawing from critiques of attitude-behavior consistency of the tripartite model and 
consistent with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985), behavioral intention does 
not always lead to actual behavior because the individual’s control over the behavior is 
incomplete.
The third issue is the absence of agreement on whether to omit the conative component 
(intentions) from conceptualizations of an attitude altogether. Because the findings of the 
existence of the conative dimension are mixed (some advocates of the multidimensional 
view find evidence of only affective and cognitive dimensions in an attitude structure and 
some find all three), Eagly and Chaiken (1993, p. 13) in their review of the literature on 
the tripartite model conclude that “evidence supports the empirical separability of three 
classes of evaluative responses under some but certainly not all circumstances. ” 
Based on our discussion, we propose behavior should be excluded from conceptualizations 
of change readiness and resistance to change that are defined in attitudinal terms, and 
should be seen as their possible outcome. Furthermore, we call for an agreement on 
the entailment of the conative component in attitudes that should be followed in both 
concepts consistently. The gap regarding the conative component is clearly visible in the 
operationalization of the concepts.
The constitutive definition of change readiness does not entail intentions or behavior. 
To comprise the concept of individual change readiness at lower levels of abstraction, 
Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) proposed two factors that change agents 
need to cover through communication: (a) discrepancy between the desired state and the 
current state the employees need to realize (i.e., the need for change), and (b) self-efficacy 
(i.e., perceived ability of individuals and collective to change). Later, other factors were 
added, and today, the most popular and frequently used manner to operationalize change 
readiness at the individual level features the five dimensions by Holt and colleagues (2007). 
These include additional questions of (c) the appropriateness of the proposed change for 
addressing the discrepancy; (d) principal support being the degree to which organizational 
leaders support the change; and (e) personal valence (e.g., Is the change beneficial for the 
individual?). Finding positive answers to these questions will form an attitude of change 
readiness. This operationalization is referred to in the literature as “the message” and shows 
how salient cognition or individuals’ beliefs are in the conceptualization of readiness.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 320
On the other hand, the operationalization of individual resistance to change includes all 
three dimensions: cognitive, affective, and conative. Oreg (2006) followed Piderit's (1999) 
work and designed the Change Attitude Scale based on a conceptualization of resistance to 
change as a multidimensional, which previous studies did not consider (Oreg, 2006). The 
items measuring affect question (positive and negative) feelings one has toward a specific 
change. The cognitive dimension involves items about the employees' evaluations of the 
worthiness and potential benefit of the change. The last, conative dimension (also called 
behavioral and intentional in Oreg’s [2006] in Piderit’s [1999] nomenclature, respectively) 
addresses intentions to act and actions against the change (Oreg, 2006). At this point, we 
need to mention the Resistance to Change Scale (Oreg, 2003) that has been widely used 
and accepted the operationalization of change resistance. This instrument was designed 
to measure an individual's dispositional resistance to change. It includes items measuring 
emotional reactions to imposed change, routine seeking, and cognitive rigidity. As such, it 
can be understood as an antecedent to a change-resistant attitude (Oreg, 2006) and must 
not be confused with change resistance conceptualized as an attitude.
3.1 The coexistence of change readiness and resistance to change
An important underlying assumption of the tripartite model is the consistency of 
all dimensions of an attitude because they are part of the same underlying construct 
experienced by an individual. However, besides the attitude-behavior consistency, this is 
one of the significant critiques of the tripartite model because numerous studies show 
the existence of inconsistencies (Fazio & Olson, 2007). With new research advocating a 
reconceptualization of individual responses to change as multidimensional attitudes, it is 
becoming clear that attitude toward change is not all black-and-white. One can foster a 
positive attitude toward change, yet at the same time resist it. In other words, resistance to 
change and change readiness can coexist.
Individual's “simultaneously oppositional positive and negative orientations toward an 
object” including cognition (“I think about X”) and/or affect (“I feel about X”) is defined 
as ambivalent (Ashforth et al., 2014, p. 1455) and is perhaps the most prevalent type of 
response toward change that has been ignored for a long time (Piderit, 2000).
3.2 Using time to improve understanding of the concepts
It is important to note that change readiness and resistance to change are, as attitudes, 
situational and time sensitive. If the situation or the context within which change occurs 
changes, attitudes can change as well. 
Referring to change readiness, Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993, p. 700) noted 
that “the creation of readiness is not necessarily a pre-change concern only. ” They posited 
readiness should be maintained throughout the duration of the change process because 

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 321
change is composed of smaller, ongoing changes and thus initial change readiness will not 
suffice.
We illustrate this in Figure 2 and add that the focal change stays the same, however, with 
each new piece of information from the external or individual's internal environment 
(the changing of the context) becoming available, the focal change subjectively changes 
for the individual, and thus the attitude toward it can change, too. The issue of time and 
context changes that it brings is especially significant to our discussion of change-related 
attitudes, since attitudes form before change takes action. For the formation of an attitude 
toward future events that we can never possess complete information on, every new piece 
of information we obtain can importantly change our attitude. Thus, we can see change 
readiness and resistance to change must be seen as fluid. 
Figure 2: The role of time and change of context in attitude change 
Note. C1 means change 1, C2 change 2, and C3 change 3. We are talking about the same change (e.g., a merger), 
however, as the context changes, the change is not the same for the individual anymore because with time new 
information that changes the context of the change is obtained.
Stevens (2013) offered clarification of change readiness by applying stages of change. 
Drawing on Lewin's three-stage model of unfreeze–change–refreeze, there is a consensus 
that change readiness applies to the phase of unfreezing and “equates to the preparation 
stage” (Holt & Vardaman, 2013). However, as Stevens (2013) noted when applying it 
to the phases of the transtheoretical model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983), it is not 
clear where to apply it. Thus, he proposed conceptualizing change readiness as a process 
referring to the transitions between the phases of precontemplation to contemplation and 
contemplation to preparation, reflecting the shifts in an individual’s decisional balance 
rather than positioning it in a particular phase. W e propose this approach could be applied 
to resistance to change as well.
3.3 Confusion with similar concepts
While the majority of definitions of change readiness draw on Armenakis, Harris, and 
Mossholder (1993), some definitions are closer to other concepts and some even contain 
them in the definitions of readiness, such as change commitment (e.g., Weiner, 2009). For 
this reason, we review some of the concepts most often used in conjunction with change 
readiness or as its synonym in Table 3.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 322
Table 3: Concepts similar to change readiness 
The confusion can be partly resolved by considering the stages of change. Readiness, 
in comparison to commitment, refers to the stages prior to the action stage, while 
commitment is in Armenakis, Harris, and Feild’s (1999) view typical of Lewin’s freezing 
stage. However, it may apply to any of the change stages, and thus in the earlier stages of 
the change process these two concepts can indeed be indistinguishable, since they are both 
described as precursors to change-supportive behaviors (Armenakis & Harris, 2009) and 
entail cognitive and affective dimensions (Hersovitch & Meyer [2002] suggest the force 
might also be classified as affective).
Some authors distinguish openness from readiness, saying it is a prior condition to 
it (Wanberg & Banas, 2000), while others (e.g., Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007) treat 
the two concepts as nearly synonyms. Since openness does not entail the intentional 
component, the similarity of the two depends upon whether we include intentions into 
conceptualization of readiness (Stevens, 2013). Thus in the early stages when it is not clear 
what type of behaviors will change require to form intentions readiness may indeed take 
the form of openness (Stevens, 2013).
Coping with change differs from change readiness by involving behavioral effort to 
manage change. Moreover, it implies change is already occurring, as opposed to readiness 
that happens before change occurs.
The problem of differentiating between similar concepts deriving from stages of change 
is not that salient with resistance to change. An issue that seemingly needs to be clarified 
is activation. Coetsee (1999) places resistance on a continuum of intensity ranging 
from apathy (i.e., indifference) to aggression (i.e., destructive opposition), positing that 
Construct Source Definition
Openness to change Miller, Johnson, & Grau (1994, p. 66) “Willingness to support 
organizational change and positive 
affect toward change. ”
Commitment to change Herscovitch & Meyer (2002, p. 475) “ A force (mind-set) that binds an 
individual to a course of action 
deemed necessary for the successful 
implementation of a change 
initiative. ”
Coping with change Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis 
(1986, p. 572)
“ A person's cognitive and intentional/
behavioral efforts to manage (reduce, 
minimize or tolerate) the internal or 
external demands of the person-
environment transaction when it is 
appraised as taxing or exceeding a 
person's resources. ”

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 323
resistance can be passive when forms of opposition are weak, expressed for example by 
voicing opposition, or active when blocking or impeding change. We agree with Coetsee 
(1999) that a more nuanced approach is needed. However, we share the views building on 
Lewin’s (1947) and other behavior-oriented conceptualizations, as well as affect-focused 
conceptualizations describing change resistance with core affects high in activation (e.g., 
Oreg et al., 2018), implying resistance to be high in activation.
Change readiness or resistance happens when individuals foster psychological attachment 
to change. Change entails psychological involvement for them and triggers psychological 
arousal (Baek, 2010). The psychological arousal can be in a form of cognition or affect. 
Arousal of cognition and activation of an individual’s cognitive resources show through 
answering questions, such as “Is the change needed? Am I capable of change? Is the change 
beneficial for me?” and others explained in Section 3. In other words, we speak of change 
resistance and change readiness when employees care for the change. In terms of affect, 
emotions high in activation are felt, such as excitement, fear, or anger (Oreg et al., 2018). 
Coghlan (1993) for example describes resistance as a dynamic energy and emphasizes it 
is not passive.
We posit other concepts are more appropriate for capturing low levels of psychological 
activation, such as disengagement (Oreg et al., 2018) or indifference, as mentioned by 
Coetsee (1999) himself. Jermier, Knights, and Nord (1994, p. 9) observe that seeing 
resistance as “a reactive process where agents embedded in power relations actively oppose 
initiatives by other agents” is the most prevalent view in the literature and this is also 
the view advocated in our paper as the most appropriate. We present the concepts of 
psychological disengagement and indifference, together with another concept similar to 
resistance to change – change cynicism in Table 4.
Table 4: Concepts similar to resistance to change
Construct Source Definition
Psychological (change) 
disengagement
Major et al. (1998, p. 35) “ A defensive detachment of self-esteem from 
outcomes in a particular domain, such that 
feelings of self-worth are not dependent on 
successes or failures in that domain. ”
Indifference Ben-Ze’ ev (2000) Perceiving something as unimportant, thus 
feeling no emotion in response. 
Change cynicism Wanous, Reichers, & Austin 
(2000, p. 135)
“ A construct that has two elements: a 
pessimistic outlook for successful change 
and blame placed on “those responsible” for 
lacking the motivation and/or the ability to 
effect successful change. ”

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 324
Cynicism about change can be found on the negative side of attitudes toward change. 
Bommer, Rich, and Rubin (2005) see it as a complex attitude comprised of cognitive, 
affective, and behavioral aspects. However, as Reichers, Wanous, and Austin (1997) 
observe, cynicism does not necessarily result in change-resistant behaviors, which is 
compliant with our discussion on the behavioral component of attitude in Section 3. 
Cynicism is distinct from resistance in that it arises from a loss of faith in change leaders 
and the history of unsuccessful change attempts, whereas resistance as a negative attitude 
toward change is based on self-interest, misunderstanding, or inherently limited tolerance 
for change (Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). Thus, being cynical about change will 
not aim to seek answers to questions such as “Is change needed and beneficial for me?” 
because a cynic fosters feelings of distrust or unfairness toward those responsible for 
change (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005).
4 DISCUSSION
Armenakis et al. (1993) tried to differentiate the concept of change readiness from 
resistance to change, however, they were not as successful in resolving the confusion as 
in preventing further calls for clarifications after their publication (e.g., Dent & Goldberg, 
1999). Their differentiation draws on the majority of past definitions of resistance to change 
defining the concept in behavioral terms. Armenakis et al. (1993, p. 681) differentiate 
readiness from resistance by defining change readiness as “a cognitive precursor to the 
behaviors” . They leave resistance to change conceptualized as behavior solely. In their view, 
the behavior could be of either support for change or resistance towards change, despite 
the term “resistance” being usually associated with a negative orientation toward change. 
Similarly, their view allows for assigning the possible negative valence to the change 
readiness attitude, meaning a sort of change readiness (i.e., negative change readiness) 
could be a precursor to the change resistance (the behavior). However, what seemed a clear 
differentiation between the two focal concepts opens new questions, one of them being 
“What was their basis for defining resistance as behavior?” , while the cognitive component 
is present in some definitions and literature preceding their paper (e.g, Argyris, 1985), as 
revealed in our review. 
Based on our review and discussion in Section 3, we claim that the ambiguity and therefore 
calls for clarifications were justified. Resistance to change cannot simply be conceptualized 
as behavior, as Armenakis et al. (1993) proposed. The two concepts share attitudinal roots. 
When we speak of resistance to change as behavior (as the majority of early definitions 
do), we know today that we should be speaking of a different concept. We are witnessing 
a polysemy, meaning using the same phrase (resistance to change) to denote two different 
meanings and thus two concepts: (a) resistance to change: the attitude, and (b) resistance 
to change: the behavior. However, back in 1950, when Zander defined resistance to change, 
behaviors were assumed to be visual expressions of attitudes – the directly unobservable 
psychological phenomena. 

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 325
Figure 3 illustrates our understanding of how the two concepts grew more together 
through their evolution. According to clarification, our proposal for resistance to change 
as a behavior should be seen as a separate concept from resistance to change as an attitude, 
we could assume the resistance to change “curve” presents two different concepts. But 
knowing the background and the development of attitude-behavior consistency literature, 
it becomes clear it depicts the evolution of one concept.
Nowadays, resistance to change and change readiness are conceptualized as attitudes. 
However, due to the different evolutions of our focal concepts, and the issues raised in 
Section 3, the conative or behavioral component is still present in the operationalization 
of resistance to change but not in the operationalization of change readiness.
Figure 3: The evolution of resistance to change and change readiness conceptualization
As for their use, resistance to change nowadays is still operationalized in research in 
different ways. While the majority of research acknowledges the multidimensionality of 
the concept and uses Oreg’s (2006) definition (e.g., Rafferty & Jimmieson, 2017; Moutousi 
& May, 2018), some authors still use it exclusively in behavioral terms (e.g., Furst & Cable, 
2008), and do not recognize it as an attitude. Change readiness, on the other hand, is 
consistently used as an attitude. Its possible consequent behavior is discussed as change-
supportive behavior.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 326
We conclude that the concepts do represent the opposite poles of a continuum. They share 
the core property of being attitudes, readiness being the positive, and resistance the negative 
orientation toward change. However, both concepts should be operationalized along the 
same dimensions to enable complete alignment. Thus, we call for a unified approach to 
the operationalization of both concepts to facilitate commensurability. More specifically, 
we suggest that an agreement on the entailment of intentions in the conceptualization 
of an attitude should be reached and consistently implemented into both concepts. 
Furthermore, the behavior should be excluded from the resistance to change concept, and 
change-resistant or change-supportive behaviors seen as possible outcomes of resistance 
to change and change readiness, respectively.
To ensure commensurability, an important property of the concepts, as well as their 
similarity by involving activity and not passivity of change recipients, is deriving from 
psychological attachment to a specific change. With activity we refer to a form of 
psychological arousal, the activation of recipients' cognitive resources and/or emotions. 
In other words, employees will experience resistance or readiness when they care for the 
change, and the criterion of activation importantly separates them from other change-
related attitudes. 
Another criterion that we propose to help clarify the two concepts is the role of time and 
change context. Resistance to change and change readiness concern the pre-change phase, 
however, as attitudes they are situational and are as such ongoing processes. As the context 
changes constantly with time, the attitude can change as well and should not be treated 
as a pre-change concern only because every change is composed of many other smaller 
changes. In line with this finding, the two concepts should be seen as continuous and 
measured accordingly.
The situational property of change attitudes should not be lost or the terms confused with 
trait-like concepts. Resistance especially, is often seen as a psychological disposition of 
individuals and has been measured in many studies, using Oreg's (2003) Resistance to 
Change Scale. An individual's dispositional inclination to resist change is a possible source 
or antecedent of a change-resistant attitude. The same could be applied to readiness. 
Despite the finding that change readiness and resistance to change can be put on a 
bipolar continuum, the question is, should they be. Change is one of the major triggers 
of ambivalence (Piderit, 1999), and an individual can simultaneously hold positive and 
negative orientations toward change. Moving beyond the seminal work of Thurstone 
(1928), who saw attitudes on a bipolar continuum ranging from positive to negative, with 
a neutral point in the middle, we draw on social psychologists' work (e.g., Kaplan, 1972; 
Breckler, 1994) to suggest that a more nuanced approach is needed by separating the 
positive and negative components of an attitude and placing them in a two-dimensional 
space. According to the traditional bipolar attitude approach, individuals who have mixed 
feelings, as well as the ones who are indifferent, would report the same neutral attitude 

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 327
(Baek, 2010). We note that change readiness and resistance indeed can and should be 
looked at in conjunction, however, not in the sense of a bipolar continuum but rather as 
simultaneously present orthogonal concepts, as depicted in Figure 4. Within the spectrum 
of attitudes, which arises from the orthogonality of the two concepts, there are many 
nuances of attitudes that need to be further researched in the future.
Figure 4: Resistance to change and change readiness: From bipolar to orthogonal concepts
With our review, we contribute to the clarification of the change readiness and resistance 
to change concepts. Our findings bear insights for future research on the integration 
of the two concepts. Moreover, we see our results as building blocks to help align and 
integrate existing measures or develop new ones. Drawing from our clarification of the 
focal properties of the concepts, we propose a new measurement instrument should be 
developed in the future that would improve the validity of resistance to change and change 
readiness and better reflect the realities of change-related attitudes.  
In Table 5, we summarize the proposed building blocks for a potential new measurement 
instrument.
Table 5: Building blocks for a potential new measurement instrument
Building block Description
Catching ambivalence and attitudinal nuances The new measurement instrument should be able to 
measure resistance to change and change readiness 
simultaneously (i.e., as orthogonal concepts) to 
be able to capture the realities of change-related 
attitudes that are often ambivalent. 
Aligning the attitude components An agreement on the entailment of the conative 
component in the conceptualization of an attitude 
should be achieved and followed in both focal 
concepts consistently. This would facilitate the 
commensurability of change readiness and resistance 
to change and establish the condition to treat the two 
concepts as orthogonal to one another. 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 328
Based on Holt and Vardaman’s (2013) definition of change readiness, which entails the 
capability of executing change, and following the ordinary meaning of the term readiness 
(i.e., to be fully prepared for something; New Oxford American Dictionary), we find 
another interesting avenue for future research and conceptualization of change readiness. 
A question appears of whether the self-perceived capability (self-efficacy) captured in 
existing definitions of change readiness should be expanded to capability in more objective 
terms as well. Drawing on the plain readiness definition, Weiner (2009) noted that change 
readiness means being willing and able to change. The issue of actual ability should 
receive attention in future research, especially because change readiness is used as a tool 
by practitioners to predict the success of future change implementations. By expanding 
the definition in such a way, we would radically redefine change readiness, making it 
more than an attitude and moving it away from the concept of resistance to change. An 
alternative would be to define a new concept that entails both, readiness and ability.
5 CONCLUSION
In our paper, we juxtaposed the concepts of resistance to change and change readiness, and 
reviewed their evolution through time. This allowed us to explore the sources of ambiguity 
in their conceptualizations that is still present in the literature today. The originality of 
our approach stems from the simultaneous review of resistance to change and change 
readiness.
Examining the two concepts simultaneously is important for two reasons. First, change 
readiness has been in prior literature assumed as the opposite pole of resistance. T o validate 
this assumption, we should first explore common grounds for comparing both concepts. A 
major finding of our study suggests that the two concepts can be compared because they 
share being an attitude. Moreover, they both include activation of an individual's cognitive 
Building block Description
Separation of the behavioral dimension from 
conceptualization of resistance to change 
Behavior should be excluded from the resistance 
to change concept and seen as a possible outcome 
(change-resistant behavior) of the attitude. This 
would also establish a condition for orthogonality of 
the concepts.
Psychological activation We speak of resistance to change and change 
readiness when change triggers psychological 
(cognitive and/or emotional) arousal and an 
individual cares for the change. Activation in a 
sense of behavior is a possible outcome of the focal 
concepts.
Continuance of measurement Despite concerning the pre-change phase, resistance 
to change and change readiness are situational, and 
should be understood and measured as an ongoing 
process, as the context changes constantly with time. 
One-time pre-change measurement will not suffice.

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 329
resources and/or emotions and are thus not passive attitudes. Drawing from this evidence, 
we confirm that the two concepts can be treated as opposite poles of each other. 
However, the attitudes toward change should not be put on a bipolar continuum. Theorists 
and practitioners alike should realize change is one of the major triggers of ambivalence 
(Piderit, 1999), and the orientations of attitude dimensions will not always be aligned. 
We suggest that future researchers pay more attention to understand the spectrum of 
ambivalence toward change given that an individual’s attitude toward change is rarely 
bipolar. We advocate that a more nuanced categorization of attitudes toward change 
is needed in the future and propose more precision and richness should be added by 
combining the orientation toward change (positive or negative) with the level of activation 
(activation of positivity and/or negativity that arises from the psychological attachment to 
change) and by acknowledging multiple dimensions of an attitude that will not always be 
aligned in terms of orientation toward change.
Last but not least, our study does not come without limitations. It is a qualitative review 
of the concepts of change readiness and resistance to change that was driven by a goal to 
clarify them to be able to understand them better and answer the question of whether or 
not they are representing opposite poles of the same continuum. A combination with a 
quantitative review of the concepts in terms of bibliometric analyses might reveal some 
interesting additional insights. We present only a brief quantitative review of the number 
of publications to show the popularity of the concepts through time.
Second, as a result of our review, we propose some building blocks for a potential new 
measurement instrument. We do discuss the existing operationalization of the concepts, 
however, with a more thorough review of the measures of both concepts we would be 
able to better examine the downsides of the existing measures and provide more practical 
suggestions to improve future measures of our focal concepts.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 330
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action 
control (pp. 11-39). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human 
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Anuradha, C., & Kelloway, K. E. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change. 
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25 (6), 485-498.
Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, change and defensive routines . Boston: Pitman.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and 
research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational 
change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9 (2), 127-142.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (1999). Making change permanent A 
model for institutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and 
Development , 12, 97-128.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for 
organizational change. Human relations, 46(6), 681-703.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F . A. (1998). The power of resistance: Sustaining valued identities. 
In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp. 89-120). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in 
organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453-1478.
Baek, Y . M. (2010). An integrative model of ambivalence. The Social Science Journal, 47 (3), 
609-629.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social 
Psychology Quarterly, 55 , 178-204.
Ben-Ze’ ev, A. (2000). The Subtlety of Emotions . Cambridge: MIT.

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 331
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. 
Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 187-215.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: 
Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about 
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (7), 733-753.
Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the 
organizational change literature. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46 (4), 500-531.
Bourdieu, P . (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7 (1), 14-25.
Bovey, W . H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role of defense 
mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16 (7), 534–548.
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct 
components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (6), 1191-1205.
Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude 
ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54 (2), 350-365.
Brower, R. S., & Abolafia, M. Y . (1995). The structural embeddedness of resistance among 
public managers. Group & Organization Management, 20 (2), 149-166.
Burnes, B. (2015). Understanding resistance to change - building on Coch and French. 
Journal of Change Management, 15 (2), 92-116.
Burnes, B., & Bargal, D. (2017). Kurt Lewin: 70 Y ears on. Journal of Change Management, 
17(2), 91-100.
Coch, L., & French Jr, J. R. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human relations, 
1(4), 512-532.
Coetsee, L. (1999). From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly , 23, 
204-222.
Coghlan, D. (1993). A person-centred approach to dealing with resistance to change. 
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 14 (4), 10-14.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 332
Cozolino, L. (2006). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing 
social brain. New Y ork, NY: W .W . Norton & Company.
Crites Jr, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive 
properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social 
Psychology Bulletin, 20 (6), 619-634.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New 
Y ork, NY: Harper Collins.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., 
Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal 
study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational and 
Organizational Psychology, 75 (4), 377-392.
del Val, M.P., & Fuentes, C. M. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature review and 
empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.
Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change” . The Journal of 
Applied Behavioral Science, 35 (1), 25-41.
Diamond, M. A. (1986). Resistance to change: A psychoanalytic critique of Argyris and 
Schon's contributions to organization theory and intervention. J ournal of Management 
Studies, 23(5), 543-562.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt 
Brace Jovanovich College. 
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. 
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 269-322). Boston: 
McGraw-Hill.
Elias, S. M. (2009). Employee commitment in times of change: Assessing the importance 
of attitudes toward organizational change. Journal of Management, 35(1), 37-55.
Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2007). Attitudes: Foundations, functions, and consequences.  
In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social psychology; Concise student 
edition (pp. 123-145). London: SAGE. 

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 333
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1999). Unfairness and resistance to change: Hardship as 
mistreatment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12 (1), 35-50.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health 
status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (3), 
571-579.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W ., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. 
Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.
Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: 
Managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 
93(2), 453.
Gondo, M., Patterson, K. D., & Palacios, S. T. (2013). Mindfulness and the development of 
a readiness for change. Journal of Change Management, 13 (1), 36-51.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond change management: A 
multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees' commitment 
to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4), 942-951.
Herscovitch, L. (2003). Resistance to Organizational Change: Toward a Multidimensional 
Conceptualization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Ontario, 
Ontario, Canada.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P . (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of 
a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 474-487.
Holt, D. T ., & V ardaman, J. M. (2013). T oward a comprehensive understanding of readiness 
for change: The case for an expanded conceptualization. Journal of Change Management, 
13(1), 9-18.
Holt, D. T ., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational 
change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 
43(2), 232-255.
Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. London: Polity Press.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 334
Jermier, J. M., Knights, D., & Nord, W . R. (Eds.) (1994). Critical perspectives on work and 
organization. Resistance and power in organizations . Florence, KY, US: Taylor & Frances/
Routledge.
Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory 
and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. 
Psychological Bulletin, 77 (5), 361-372.
Karp, T., & Tveteraas Helgø, T. I. (2009). Reality revisited: Leading people in chaotic 
change. Journal of Management Development, 28 (2), 81-93.
Korsgaard, C. (n.d.). Rationality. Retrieved from http://www.people.fas.harvard.
edu/~korsgaar/CMK.Rationality.pdf
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business 
Review, 73(2), 59-67.
Krantz, J. (1999). Comment on “challenging resistance to change”. Journal of Applied 
Behavioral Sciences, 35 (1), 42-44.
Lawrence, P. R. (1954). How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 
32(3), 49-57.
Lewin, K. (1947). Group decisions and social change. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley 
(Eds.), (1959) Readings in Social Psychology (pp. 330–344). New Y ork: Henry Holt.
Major, B., Spencer, S., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C., & Crocker, J. (1998). Coping with negative 
stereotypes about intellectual performance: The role of psychological disengagement. 
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (1), 34-50.
McMurry, R. N. (1947). The problem of resistance to change in industry. Journal of Applied 
Psychology, 31 (6), 589-593.
Miller, V . D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in 
a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22 , 59-80.
Moutousi, O., & May, D. (2018). How Change-related Unethical Leadership Triggers 
Follower Resistance to Change: A Theoretical Account and Conceptual Model. Journal of 
Change Management, 18 (2), 142-161.

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 335
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. 
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (4), 680-693.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European 
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15 (1), 73-101.
Oreg, S., Bartunek, J. M., Lee, G., & Do, B. (2018). An affect-based model of recipients’ 
responses to organizational change events. Academy of Management Review, 43(1), 65-86.
Piderit, K. (1999). Navigating relationships with coworkers: Understanding employees' 
attitudes toward an organizational change (Doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A 
multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of 
Management Review, 25(4), 783-794.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of 
smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 
Psychology, 51 (3), 390-395.
Rafferty, A. E., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2017). Subjective perceptions of organizational change 
and employee resistance to change: direct and mediated relationships with employee well‐
being. British Journal of Management, 28 (2), 248-264.
Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A 
multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110-135.
Readiness. In A. Stevenson & C.L. Lindberg (Eds.), New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd 
ed., 2010). New Y ork: Oxford University.
Reichers, A. E., W anous, J. P ., & Austin, J. T . (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism 
about organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 11 (1), 48-59.
Salleh, H., Alshawi, M., Sabli, N. A. M., Zolkafli, U. K., & Judi, S. S. (2011). Measuring 
readiness for successful information technology/information system (IT/IS) project 
implementation: A conceptual model. African Journal of Business Management, 5(23), 
9770-9778.
Scott, C. D., & Jaffe, D. T. (1988). Survive and thrive in times of change. Training & 
Development Journal, 42(4), 25-28.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOl. 21 | No. 2 | 2019 336
Self, D. R., Armenakis, A. A., & Schraeder, M. (2007). Organizational change content, 
process, and context: A simultaneous analysis of employee reactions. Journal of Change 
Management, 7(2), 211-229.
Shimoni, B. (2017). What is resistance to change? A habitus-oriented approach. T he 
Academy of Management Perspectives, 31 (4), 257-270.
Smith, M. B. (1947). The personal setting of public opinions: A study of attitudes toward 
Russia. Public Opinion Quarterly, 11, 507-523.
Stevens, G. W. (2013). Toward a process-based approach of conceptualizing change 
readiness. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49 (3), 333-360.
Swartz, D. L. (2002). The sociology of habit: The perspective of Pierre Bourdieu. 
Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 22 (1_suppl), 61s-69s.
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33. 
529-554.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in 
a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (1), 132-142.
W anous, J. P ., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T . (2000). Cynicism about organizational change: 
Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group & Organization Management, 25 (2), 
132-153.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation 
Science, 4(1), 67-75.
Zander, A. (1950). Resistance to change - its analysis and prevention. Advanced 
Management Journal, 4(5),9-11. 

E. REPOVŠ, M. DRNOVŠEK, R. KAŠE | CHANGE READY , RESISTANT, OR BOTH? EXPLORING ... 337
APPENDIX
Figure 1: Total publications per year on resistance to change and change readiness
NOTE. The figure was produced based on the Social Sciences Citation Index edition of the Web of Science Core Collection database. Document types 
“article, ” “review, ” “proceedings paper, ” and “book chapter, ” in English and from 1900 to 2018 (June), were included. W e have searched the database for works 
with the words “change readiness” or “readiness for change” in their abstracts, titles, or keywords for the first concept of our interest, and “change resistance” 
or “resistance to change” or “resistance toward* change” for the second. The search was undertaken using the Web of Science categories “Management,” 
“Psychology Applied, ” “ Psychology Multidisciplinary, ” “Psychology, ”  “Business, ” “ Social Sciences Interdisciplinary, ” “ Psychology Social, ” and “ Behavioral 
Sciences. ”