Planfulness Ability as a Mediator of the Relationship between Learning from Supervisor and Readiness for Change: Empirical Evidence from India

Abstract

The present research aims to examine whether learning from the supervisor influences readiness for change with the mediating impact of planfulness. Drawing upon the theory of planned behavior, it is hypothesized that learning from the supervisor positively impacts planfulness ability in individuals, which in turn enhances the readiness for change. Through using convenience sampling, the sample of 451 was collected from employees working full-time in the manufacturing and I.T. service organizations in India. Structural equation modeling and regression analysis indicate that learning from the supervisor is positively associated with readiness for change and planfulness. Additionally, planfulness fully mediated the relationship between learning from the supervisor and readiness to change. The findings of the present research highlight that continuous support and learning from the supervisor enhances the planfulness ability of the individual and consequently enhances individual readiness for change. The current research is pioneering in testing the hypothetical model associating learning from the supervisor, planfulness, and readiness for change.

1. Introduction

In the VUCA environment of the twenty-first century [Acharya, 2016], the question of how businesses might successfully achieve strategic change or transformation has acquired relevance among management practitioners, scholars, and experts. However, the fact that “about 70% of all change attempts fail” [Beer and Nohria, 2000; Dobrovič and Timková, 2017] indicates our failure to comprehend how the change process is implemented successfully. Whatever the cause for the failure of change initiatives, mishandling the change process can contribute to individual stress, reducing motivation, commitment, trust, & work satisfaction [Elias, 2009]. As a result, organizations must manage the change process successfully [Dobrovič and Timková, 2017]. Therefore, research on individual readiness for change has proven particularly important in advancing our knowledge of how change processes are implemented successfully [Armenakis et al., 1993; Cunningham et al., 2002]. Readiness for change is termed “as the cognitive precursor to the behaviors of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort” [Armenakis et al., 1993, p. 681]. To be more precise, people’s reactions to change vary; some view it as positive and enjoy and support it, while others regard it as a menace and reject it by reacting adversely [Cole et al., 2006]. Recent findings asserted that enhancing individuals’ readiness for change made employees and organizations both agile and flexible in times of crisis and uncertainty [Adikaram et al., 2021].

The ability to design the appropriate change management process in an intelligent, proactive, and behavior-centered manner will eventually distinguish successful change initiatives from failures. According to Deloitte’s 2021 report, organizations showing change readiness and maturity in change practices are more likely to meet 1.4 times more financial targets, 2.7 times retain high performers; 3.9 times more engage their workforce. Furthermore, an organization’s ability to be ready for change is its most significant competitive advantage [Deloitte, 2021].

Though the literature on organizational change and change management is substantial, it does contain a gap that has largely been unnoticed until lately [Alqudah et al., 2022]. Most of the studies related to organizational change management, in particular, have concentrated on organizational-related dimensions rather than individual-related dimensions [Oreg et al., 2011; Vakola, 2014]. As a consequence, whereas management practitioners and scholars have gained a considerable understanding of macro-level factors affecting organizational growth and change, we have acquired far less understanding related to micro-level variables. This is problematic since organizational change throws a lot of strain on employees [Rusly et al., 2012; Vakola and Nikolaou, 2005] and neglects to address the psychological requirements of employees during the execution of a change effort, which might lead to an unsuccessful change initiative [Stanleigh, 2008]. In light of the above arguments, it is clearly discovered that further empirical examination is needed to determine the antecedents to enhance the individual readiness for change. To fill this gap, authors propose and hypothesize learning from the supervisor as a predictor on the one hand and planfulness as a mediator on the other hand, and both to be associated with individual readiness for change. According to existing findings, organizational change initiatives are more likely to succeed if employees feel supported during the change process [Jung et al., 2020; Men et al., 2020].

In line with past studies, the supervisor role in change management literature has been found to be a key change agent in the planning and execution of new change initiatives [Eisenberger et al., 2002; Hon et al., 2014; Neves and Caetano, 2009]. Employees are less defensive and more eager to participate and involve in change initiatives when they obtain learning and support from their supervisor. Employees who are supported and rewarded at work for their readiness for change are found to be willing to support and contribute to organizational change vision and mission, impacting the overall business success [Srivastava and Agrawal, 2020].

Studies have validated that individual readiness to change is also enhanced by personal-growth initiative behaviors such as planfulness ability, which has been investigated as the crucial measure of individuals’ ability to make progress towards implementation of change and achievement of goals in the contemporary world [Ludwig et al., 2019]. Robitschek et al. [2012] asserted that employees who are proficient in planfulness ability are found to be taking change initiative proactively and intentionally. Furthermore, past studies have found planfulness as a conducive factor to enhancing autonomy, reducing psychological distress, and fostering readiness for taking initiatives for personal development [Franklin, 2014; Weigold et al., 2014]. In view of the above arguments, we establish the following objectives; (i) to investigate the influence of learning from the supervisor on planfulness, (ii) to evaluate the influence of learning from the supervisor on readiness for change, (iii) further, to explore the mediating influence of planfulness in the association between learning from supervisor and readiness for change.

The present research further adds to the scholarship on change readiness in numerous ways. First, the authors indicate the significance of learning and support from supervisors to enhance the employees’ readiness for change. The current study contributes theoretically by empirically testing the pivotal role of planfulness in understanding how learning and support from supervisor influence employees’ readiness for change and consequently contribute to our understanding of the process through which individual readiness for change can be enhanced. Furthermore, the implications of the present study can be used to constitute HR processes and policies that stimulate an encouraging organizational culture for change and enhance the possibility of implementation of change successfully.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1 Learning from Supervisor

Learning is the process by which individuals adapt and alter their way of thinking and doing, and it is the practice through which individuals develop their competencies, especially when learning is work-integrated [Döös, 2007]. Nikolova et al. [2014] emphasized the importance of learning through interaction at the workplace and defined “learning from the supervisor as the process of acquiring new or expanding existing Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and other characteristics’ (KSAOs) through interacting with the direct supervisor” (p. 14). Similarly, Kim et al. [2021] suggested that employees’ interactions with their direct supervisors have a positive impact on their knowledge, skills, and abilities since supervisors are a critical source of information for workers and so contribute to their workplace learning. Further, Senge [1990] explored the position of the supervisor as a teacher in his influential work “The Fifth Dimension”, whose principal task is to facilitate learning for his followers. According to Russ-Eft [2002], the foundation of supervisory support is providing encouragement to workers for their attempts to learn on the job. Likewise, Choi and Jacobs [2011] suggested in their studies that a supportive management approach is a critical work environment attributes that promote individuals’ learning processes & results [Cooper et al., 2019]. Similarly, Coetzer [2007] highlighted a few of the supervisor or seniors support practices as essential to employee learning, i.e., cooperation in the solution process, engaging in dialogues about employee performance, reviewing employee task-related challenges, and engaging employees in the planning for learning and knowledge processes and also implementation for the same [Na-Nan and Sanamthong, 2020]. In the present study, supervisor support and learning from a supervisor have been used interchangeably.

3. Planfulness

The term “planfulness” states to the degree to which an individual’s conduct and mode of thinking are “goal-oriented” and it points out the individual’s ability to establish and manage strategies that enable his or her self-development [Robitschek et al., 2012]. Furthermore, it refers to the ability to set, maintain, and achieve goals through planning and persistence. In self-regulation research, planfulness is composed of three interconnected factors that correspond to the broad cognitive approaches that have been shown to be consistently “associated with improved goal outcomes in experimental settings: temporal orientation (TO) to the future implications of current behavior, mental flexibility (MF) in contextualizing one’s actions in terms of one’s goals, and cognitive strategies (CS) to anticipate and deal with potential obstacles” [Ludwig et al., 2019]. Ludwig, Srivastava, and Berkman [2018] define “Planfulness—that captures a person’s proclivity to adopt efficient goal-related cognition in pursuit of their goals.”

Planfulness ability is especially advantageous when tasks are ambiguous or uncertain, and the decision-maker cannot depend on experience or habit [Kane et al., 2021; Linden, 2021]. Creating a plan mediates the link between intention and action by specifying where and when to act in order to accomplish the desired goal [Gollwitzer and Brandstätter, 1997]. When complex and complicated operations are conducted in the face of ambiguity, individuals struggle to choose the optimal course of action. Planfulness ability enables individuals to comprehend the link between action and performance, therefore reducing the effects of misdirected effort [Campbell, 1988; Shane and Delmar, 2004].

4. Readiness for Change

Readiness for change is likely one of the most crucial aspects influencing an individual’s early support for change efforts [Wang et al., 2020]. Although Jacobson [1957] originated the notion of readiness for change, further, the foundation of readiness for change as a distinct variable has been implanted through numerous theoretical foundations of the procedure by which change or transformation occurs. The concept of readiness is seen to be consistent with Lewin’s concept of unfreezing, and it is demonstrated in the behaviors of those participating in the change process [Armenakis et al., 1993; Bernerth, 2004; Schein, 1996]. According to researchers and practitioners, many change initiatives failed due to a lack of executing unfreezing phase successfully [Rafferty and Minbashian, 2019; Reinholz and Andrews, 2020]. As a result, several scholars and researchers [Madsen et al., 2005; Schlesinger and Kotter, 2008] emphasized the importance of developing and sustaining change readiness among individuals before trying to enact and implement any sort of transformation and change.

4.1 Theory of Planned Behavior

To examine the mediating influence of planfulness between learning from a supervisor and readiness to change among full-time employees, the current research deliberates the “theory of planned behavior (TPB) given by” [Ajzen, 1985]. The premise of an individual’s purpose in undertaking a particular action is central to this theory. The current research centered on employee intentions as the primary focus, as they are considered to encompass the underlying factors that motivate and drive an employees’ behavior. They contend that the stronger the intent to be involved in an activity, the better the performance will be. Three components drive this intention: perceived behavior control, attitudes, and subjective norms.

The present study employed the theory of planned behavior as the foundation for constructing a theoretical framework that aimed to elucidate the interconnection between learning from supervisor, planfulness and readiness for change.

5. Linking learning from supervisor and Readiness for Change

Supervisors play a critical role in learning organizations because they inspire commitment to change [Senge, 1996] and help employees develop their capacity for learning and change. Supervisors act as the organization’s representatives and are frequently engaged in the both communication and execution of change [Eisenberger et al., 2002]. Furthermore, supervisors may be viewed as change representatives in implementing organizational change efforts since changes flow downward through the organization and must be implemented at lower levels of the hierarchy [Neves and Caetano, 2009]. Moreover, learning from a supervisor entails knowledge transfer which will become an organization norm among members that facilitates the formation of changing behavior and innovative achievement [Buono and Kerber, 2010; Reid, 2019].

Sukoco et al. [2022] collected a sample from heads of the department and found that supervisors or heads act as change agents in the organization and will have an impact on employees’ change capacity. Furthermore, supervisors’ cordial relationship with their employees always encourages them to experiment and embrace the change positively [Dechurch et al., 2010].

Additionally, Supportive supervisors acknowledge the employees’ perspective and encourage initiative ability at the workplace, which can further stimulate employees’ engagement and interest to take risks and develop new ideas and readiness ability [Gilson et al., 2012]. In a recent study of empirical findings, Blanco-Donoso et al. [2019] and Charoensukmongkol and Phungsoonthorn [2020] researchers found that the supportive role of the supervisor reduces the degree of influence of uncertainties and ambiguity and makes the employees ready for change. Furthermore, Neves [2011] found that employees are more likely to embrace change when they found their supervisor to be supportive and welcoming of new initiatives.

Cunningham et al. [2002] performed a study at a hospital undergoing significant restructuring, randomly surveyed 654 hospital staff members discovered that employees in active roles, or roles that comprise challenges and demands and greater support from supervisors, exhibited higher readiness for change and implemented new change strategy effectively [Kraft et al., 2018]. Similarly, Rafferty and Jimmieson [2010] undertook empirical research and found that confidence in peers, learning from superiors and senior leaders, system support, and self-efficacy all had significant positive associations with readiness to change. Heyns et al. [2021] asserted that during the change process, the supportive role of the supervisor provides a psychologically safe environment, consequently enhancing the employees’ readiness to change.

We argue that the extent to which a supervisor supports an employee has the potential to influence their emotions, mindset, and individual frames of reference and, eventually, their perspective towards change, so leading to the establishment of favorable change assessments through the resolution of perceptual inconsistencies linked with fear of change [Bovey and Hede, 2001]. Thus, we hypothesize that if employees are getting appropriate learning support from their supervisors and seniors, they are found to be more ready for the change. We, therefore, hypothesize the following:

H1: Learning from the supervisor will have a positive association with readiness for change.

6. Linking learning from Supervisor and Planfulness

A supervisor has been found to be supportive and assist employees [Tierney and Farmer, 2004] in planning and initiating change projects [Oldham and Cummings, 1996]. An earlier study has discovered a positive association between supervisor support and the desire to learn [Switzer et al., 2005; Paterson et al., 2014]. These results indicate that employees who felt a greater degree of support from their supervisors are more likely to develop planfulness ability. Furthermore, when it comes to providing feedback [Lancaster et al., 2013; Worsfold et al., 2004] and allocating resources to build planfulness ability and skills, supervisor support is critical [Brinkerhoff and Montesino, 1995; Lim and Johnson, 2002]. It is crucial when workers are confronted with difficulties in planning and setting priorities and goals for attaining training and information [Dermol and Čater, 2013]. Supervisors also enact a significant part in the planning and preparation for continuous learning and development of their employees [Dermol and Čater, 2013] and boosting vitality and learning at the workplace. Mushtaq et al. [2017] claimed in their studies that a supportive and learning environment nurtured by the supervisor could be immensely encouraging and motivating for the employees who are more inclined to recognize constructive job resources, for instance, opportunities for developing planfulness ability [Xanthopoulou et al., 2009]. In this respect, there are past empirical findings such as [Mensmann and Frese, 2019] found that motivation drives the employees’ personal-growth initiative abilities such as planfulness, a sample taken from micro-entrepreneurs. However, there is a dearth of literature in this regard; the association between learning from supervisors and planfulness ability has not been sufficiently addressed. Therefore, we hypothesize that;

H2: Learning from the supervisor will have a positive association with the planfulness ability of the individual.

7. Linking Learning from Supervisor, Planfulness, and Readiness for Change

The above empirical findings indicate that a learning and supportive environment from the supervisor makes it possible to enhance the goal orientation and planfulness ability of the individual [Duriez, 2011]. Therefore, we claim that employees’ planfulness ability may act as a potential mediating mechanism to illuminate the association between learning from supervisors and readiness for change. Past studies indicate that those who are strong at planning or making objectives are more likely to be able to deal with difficult situations cheerfully [Coote and Macleod, 2012]. Locke and Latham [2006] described goal-setting as a commonly recommended method for fostering desirable behaviors in organizations and believed to enhance the individual readiness to change [Holt et al., 2010; Locke and Latham, 2006]. According to the literature on goal-setting, forming precise, challenging targets, rather than just telling individuals to “do their best,” may strongly impact driving behaviors and increase performance [Locke and Latham, 2002, 2006]. Consequently, planfulness ability has been recommended and fostered during periods of change and transformation since it has been found to be effective in stimulating behaviors related to change efforts, such as minimizing resistance [Schlesinger and Kotter, 2008] and getting buy-in [Johnson, 2004]. Furthermore, People with high planfulness ability have been found to be associated with goal-oriented behavior, finding appropriate solutions, overcoming difficult times, and being ready to adapt to new changes and initiatives [Blackie et al., 2015; de Freitas et al., 2016; Weigold et al., 2014].

Huang and Hsieh [2015] collected samples from 324 supervisor-employee pairs from different eleven organizations and indicated that supervisors are found to be positively associated with proactive career behaviors such as planfulness ability. Furthermore, Bindl and Parker [2011] asserted that supervisors can play a significant role in fostering employees’ proactive behavior, such as planfulness, by providing them with learning support.

Planning addresses three issues raised by the [Milliken, 1987] model for uncertainty: “first, what is happening out there? (State uncertainty); second, how will it impact me? (Effect uncertainty); and third, what am I going to do about it? (response uncertainty)” [Shepherd et al., 2007, p. 135]. Planfulness ability minimizes all three states of uncertainty and enhances individuals’ behavioral control beliefs [Ajzen, 1991a], which in turn raises the individuals’ perception of the feasibility of participating in the new change initiatives. Past empirical findings indicate that a learning and supportive environment from the supervisor makes it possible to enhance the goal orientation and planfulness ability of the individual [Duriez, 2011]. Therefore, we claim that employees’ planfulness ability may act as a potential mediating mechanism to illuminate the association between learning from a supervisor and individual readiness to change. Grounded on the following argument, we hypothesize that;

H3: Planfulness ability of the individual will have a positive association with readiness for change.

H4: Planfulness mediates the relationship between learning from the supervisor and readiness for change.

8. Proposed Hypothesized Model

The hypothesized model of the present research has been anticipated to examine the role of learning from the supervisor on the outcome variable, i.e., readiness for change. Also, we investigated the influence of learning from a supervisor on planfulness. Furthermore, the hypothesized framework aimed at investigating the mediating influence of planfulness on the association between learning from a supervisor and readiness for change (see <Figure 1>).

<Figure 1> Proposed Framework for the Present Study

9. Research Methodology

9.1 Data and Sample

The respondents in the present research were full-time working professionals in 12 manufacturing and service organizations in India. We contacted employees through training programmes and through email for voluntary involvement in the study. Employees were informed and asked to respond to a self-rated structured questionnaire that comprised items measuring the learning from the supervisor, planfulness, readiness for change, and demographic variables. All items were written in the English language as the target populations were fluent in English. A sample of 640 employees received a survey questionnaire form, and their confidentiality was ensured. From the total participants, 451 final responses were obtained, resulting in a response rate of 70.4%. Among the 451 respondents, 293 were males, accounting for 65%, while 158(35%) were females. Overall, 76.6% of the respondents fell within the age range of 21-35 years, and 60.4% held post-graduate degrees. Out of the 451 respondents, 313(69.4%) were employed in private organizations, while the remaining 138(30.6%) worked in the public sector. Additionally, 153 respondents held junior level positions, 243 (53.8%) were at middle-level positions, and 55 held senior level positions in their respective organizations. The sample size of 451 taken in the present study is adequate according to the guidelines given by Hair et al. [2010], who suggested that sample respondents should be between five to ten times the number of observations taken under the present research.

9.2 Measures

9.2.1 Learning from Supervisor

Learning from supervisor-based learning was assessed using a scale consisting of three items developed by Nikolova et al. [2014]. The sample items for learning from supervisor are “My supervisor helps me see my mistakes as a learning experience” and “My supervisor tips me on how to do my work”. For this study, a Likert scale was utilized, employing a seven-point response scale (“strongly disagree” = 1, “strongly agree” = 7). Higher scores on the scale indicate a greater degree of learning from the supervisor. The internal consistency of the scale, as measured by alpha coefficients, was found to be 0.91 for the Indian samples.

9.2.2 Planfulness

The scale of planfulness, consisting of a five-item instrument, was created and validated by Robitschek et al. [2012], was employed to assess the planfulness ability of the individual. The sample items for planfulness are “I set realistic goals for what I want to change about myself” and “I know how to set realistic goals to make changes in myself”. In this study, the researchers administered a Likert scale with a seven-point response format (“strongly disagree” =1, “strongly agree” =7), and high scores indicate high planfulness ability. The alpha coefficient of this scale was recorded at 0.92 for this study.

9.2.3 Readiness for Change

To assess readiness for change, a sub-scale consisting of a four-item instrument, developed and validated by Robitschek et al. [2012], was employed. An example item from this sub-scale measuring readiness for change is “I can tell when I am ready to make specific changes in myself”. In this study, the researchers utilized a Likert scale with a seven-point response format (“strongly disagree” = 1, “strongly agree” = 7) to measure readiness for change. Higher scores on the scale indicate a greater level of readiness for change. The internal consistency of this scale, as indicated by the alpha coefficient, was found to be 0.88 in this study.

9.2.4 Control Variables

To examine the association between studied variables, work experience, gender, and age were incorporated as control variables. Previous research has demonstrated a negative correlation between age and work experience and readiness for change [Wiersema and Bantel, 1992]. Gender was measured categorically (0= female and 1 = male).

9.2.5 Analytical Strategy

In the initial stage of this statistical analysis, the discriminant and convergent validity of the present research were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis conducted in R Studio software. Once the discriminant and convergent validity were established for our sample, the hypothesized model was tested through hierarchical regression and structural equation modeling (SEM). The standardized path coefficients and fit statistics were calculated and reported. To examine the mediation effect, bootstrapping was employed, utilizing 5000 iterations. Bootstrapping is widely considered a robust technique for testing indirect effects [Williams and MacKinnon, 2008].

10. Analysis and Results

10.1 Descriptive Statistics

<Table 1> of the descriptive statistics presents various measurements, including means, inter-item correlations, squared correlations among variables, and average variance extracted. The results clearly indicate significant correlations between learning from supervisor and readiness to change (r = .220; p < 0.01), learning from supervisor and planfulness (r = .263; p < 0.01), as well as planfulness and readiness for change (r = 0.588; p < 0.01). The mean and standard deviation for all three study variables ranged from 5.44 to 5.63 and 0.99 to 1.42, respectively. Notably, the bold diagonal values in Table 1 demonstrate that the average variance extracted varies between .72 to .82. These values are higher than 0.50 [Fornell and Larcker, 1981] to prove the convergent validity. Moreover, these values surpass the squared inter-item correlations of the examined constructs [Hair et al., 2010].

<Table 1> Descriptive Statistics

Note: M=Mean; S=Standard Deviation. N=451; CR = Composite reliability of the measurement model; and α=Cronbach alpha. The average variance extracted from each construct (No. 7, 8, 9) is represented in bold along the diagonal. Values above the diagonal (i.e., AVE) are squares of correlations; Values below the diagonal represent inter-construct correlations.

^*p< 0.05 (2-tailed). ^**p< 0.01 (2-tailed).

10.1.1 Measurement Model

We established a measurement framework consisting of three factors: learning from the supervisor, planfulness, and readiness for change. <Table 2> provides details on the alpha coefficients, CR (Composite reliability), standardized factor loadings, and corresponding t-values. The alpha values for all constructs ranged from 0.83 to 0.90. It is worth noting that the accepted criterion for alpha reliability is 0.70 or above [Hussain et al., 2019]. The standardized factor loadings for all 12 items ranged from 0.76 to 0.94. Since these values exceed 0.50, they provide evidence of convergent validity as well [Asif et al., 2019]. Similarly, the composite reliability (CR) is more than 0.60 [Bagozzi and Yi, 1988], ranged between 0.86 to 0.92.

<Table 2> Analysis of Measurement Model

Note: α= Cronbach alpha; SE: Standard Error; Significance: ^***p<0.001 (2-tailed).

10.1.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The model fit was assessed and analyzed by conducting confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the R studio software version 1.4.1717. Before performing mediation analysis, CFA (Confirmatory factor analysis) is commonly employed to assess the model fit. The three latent factors learning from supervisor, planfulness, and readiness for change hypothesized model values fulfill the standard criterion (χ² [51] = 69.498, p <0.01, RMSEA = .037, CFI = .999, SRMR = .036, GFI = .998, TLI = .999(<Table 3>) suggested by Hooper et al. [2008]. As evidenced from <Table 3>, model fit indices clearly show that the measurement model of our study variables is a better-fit model.

<Table 3> Baseline Model Fit Measures

Note: SRMR: standardized Root mean square residual; RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation; IFI: Incremental Fit Measures; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; GFI: Goodness of Fit Index.

10.1.3 Structural Model Paths and Meditation Tests

We used PROCESS macro [Hayes, 2013] model-4 to analyze the model assumptions. This method not only gives the parameter estimates for specific structural routes, even the ranges of the confidence interval to analyze the vitality of indirect effects (i.e., mediation). Bootstrapping with 5,000 random resamples with 95% confidence intervals was performed to test the mediation hypotheses. The application of these confidence intervals was used to examine indirect effects for simple mediation hypotheses.

10.1.4 Hypothesis Testing

<Table 4> indicates the path coefficients, z-value, and 95% confidence interval. Table 4 clearly shows that learning from a supervisor is found to be insignificantly associated with readiness to change (β=0.144; t =1.6790; p > 0.0941), thus accepting hypothesis 1. Furthermore, learning from the supervisor is found to be positive and significantly related to planfulness (β = 0.225; t = 4.10; p< 0.01), thus supporting hypothesis 2. Additionally, planfulness is also found to be associated positively with readiness to change (β= .579; t=12.49; p <0.01), thus confirming hypothesis 3.

<Table 4> Beta (β) Coefficient for Hypothesis 1 to 4

Note: LSUP: Learning from supervisor; Plan: Planfulness; Ready: Readiness for change.

Furthermore, we applied to bootstrap procedure with a 95 percent confidence interval. Also, five thousand iterated samples were computed with the upper and lower limit value and Z-value to measure the indirect effect to check the mediation [Preacher and Hayes, 2008]. <Table 4>, showed the bootstrapping results, which demonstrate the significant indirect effects of planfulness on learning from supervisor-to-readiness for change relationship [H4=0.130, (0.060, 0.206) at 95 % CI]. And the direct path value from learning from the supervisor to readiness for change (β = 0.053; p>0.01) was found positively insignificant. Furthermore, we found the total effect of learning from the supervisor on readiness for change significant and positive (β = .143; p> 0.01; (0.0686, 0.2179) at 95 % CI). These results validate the mechanism of full mediation and prove hypothesis 4. <Figure 2> represents the outcome of mediating the association between variables. Planfulness mediates the relationship between learning from the supervisor and readiness for change (hypothesis 4).

<Figure 2> Structural Model Results

11. Discussion

Organizations and their employees operate in a VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous) environment, in which they must deal with a variety of political, technical, economic, and societal developments. The majority of the changes occur at the same time, leaving little time for adaptation. The VUCA world presents an organization with many challenges and changes, and properly absorbing the huge boom of these transitions has become a critical determining element in the game of victory vs. failure. It has become pivotal for an organization to establish and develop the change management process to make their employees competent and ready enough to face unforeseen circumstances assertively. Moreover, enhancing the readiness for change at the employees’ level has become important for an organization to surpass the nasties in the environment.

As learning has become an essential element in coping with organizational changes. It is relevant to study the association between learning and readiness for change. In this context, the present research focuses on an important source of learning, i.e., learning from the supervisor with readiness to change. Additionally, the mediating influence of planfulness in this context has also been studied.

The present research found a positive association between learning from supervisors and readiness for change. It clearly indicates that if there is a supportive culture in an organization in which supervisor helps, guide, and support their employees, in such an organization, employees are found to be more flexible and ready for change. Recent empirical findings supported the present research findings and suggested that supervisor or managers found to positively influence the change capacity of employees [Sukoco et al., 2022], and increased employees’ readiness for change [Kirrane et al., 2017; Thakur and Srivastava, 2018]. Furthermore, employees who showed flexibility and readiness ability found to be more engaged in the workplace [Ugargol and Patrick, 2018].

Furthermore, the relationship between learning from a supervisor and planfulness has also been examined, and it is found that with positive support and guidance from the supervisor, employees become more planful and are able to establish realistic goals for their personal and career/professional development. It implies that if given the supportive and right guidance from the supervisor, employees become more receptive towards learning from training and implementing the learning outcomes in the organization.

Subsequently, the study also highlights the mediating impact of planfulness in the association between learning from the supervisor and readiness for change. The findings showed that supervisor support becomes less significant for readiness for change when planfulness is introduced as a mediator between learning from the supervisor and readiness for change. It signifies that those employees who are more proactive in setting up their realistic plans and goals tend to be more accepting of uncertainty and the change process. These findings corroborated the findings of [Armstrong, 2014; Ludwig et al., 2019]. The present research findings also revealed that even if these employees get less or negligible support from supervisors still, they show a high level of readiness for change. Inversely, it can be deduced that people who are less planned do not set realistic goals proactively and require a more supportive environment and guidance from a supervisor.

12. Theoretical Implications

The results of the present research provide evidence to confirm and back the theory of planned behavior. As already mentioned, the intention of a person to do behavior is at the heart of this theory. In the purview of that, the role of enhancing readiness for change is to understand how individuals can be motivated to engage in behavior changes. This could be achieved by understanding the major component of the theory of planned behavior, i.e., attitude and perceived behavioral control that drive their behavior, as well as creating an environment of learning and support from the supervisor in order to motivate the employees to make any necessary changes. Additionally, providing training resources and opportunities for developing planfulness ability can help an individual become more confident and able to sustain any changes they make. Ajzen [1991] claimed that the greater a person’s intention to participate in behavior, the more likely they are to do so, which also correlated with our study that where the intention is planfulness the performance is readiness for change. Hence more will be planfulness and higher readiness for change.

13. Practical Implications

The practical implications of this research may help the organization to understand the role of supervisor support in the change process. Also, it can help to understand the employees’ behavior towards the change process. Consequently, by comprehending and evaluating the level of planfulness among employees, organizations can enhance the acceptance of their change process and minimize resistance. This understanding will enable the organization to create a supportive system that facilitates effective and successful implementation of the change process.

The findings of the present research suggest that employees will be more open to change if they have a positive learning experience with their supervisors. Supervisors should emphasize the value of change and provide encouragement and support for employees to embrace it rather than resist it. The supervisor should strive to create an environment that fosters trust, cooperation, and respect for employees. Doing this will help employees understand the importance of change and their role in making it happen. Furthermore, research suggests having a supervisor who is supportive and provides guidance and feedback can lead to employees being more planful. Through things like providing clear direction and helping to identify individual strengths, the supervisor can help facilitate the development of planfulness ability in employees. Moreover, planfulness has been found to be an important factor in an individual ability to successfully adopt changes. Planful individuals understand the importance of change and can provide valuable insight and direction in times of transition.

Importantly, the findings of this study could specifically be useful for organizations in the South Asian region. A recent world bank report also indicated that south Asian economies showed signs of growth amidst uncertainties of technological and structural changes made in response to the pandemic [World Bank, 2021] and highlighted the crucial role of learning and adopting new technologies. Such changes will demand both the planfulness and change readiness of employees. Moreover, recent studies with a focus on south Asia have also emphasized the importance of developing employees’ readiness to change in order to survive and thrive in the future [Jain and Maheshwari, 2020; Sivaraman, 2020]. This could include training in new technologies and processes, learning how to manage stress effectively, and understanding how to adapt to different cultural norms. Training in readiness for change can also help employees feel more confident and resilient when faced with change, which allows them to create a supportive environment where change is understood and accepted.

14. Limitations and Future Research Direction

Though the current study has its practical and theoretical contributions concerning the role of learning from supervisors in readiness for change, it also suffers from a few limitations. Firstly, the study utilized a cross-sectional research design, which limits the ability to establish causal relationships between variables, as there may be other factors associated with the variables in question. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies be conducted to identify and establish relationships between these variables. A longitudinal study would provide a more comprehensive understanding.

Secondly, this research has explored novel areas in terms of conceptualization and underlying factors influencing individual readiness for change in the workplace, as well as examining the relationship between learning from supervisor, planfulness, and readiness for change. However, further quantitative research can strengthen the intuitive and theoretical value of the findings from this study.

Lastly, it is important to note that the current study focused on employees in India, primarily in the manufacturing and IT industries. Consequently, the results cannot be generalized to individuals working in other sectors or with diverse cultural backgrounds. To broaden the scope of this research, it is recommended to replicate longitudinal studies in different cultural settings and with varied backgrounds.

15. Conclusion

The present research found a positive relationship between learning from a supervisor and readiness for change in the south Asian context. This showed that learning support from a supervisor enhances an individual’s self-efficacy and motivation, which leads to an increased likelihood of taking action on a desired change. Therefore, supervisors play an important role in promoting change within an organization. Furthermore, this study also found empirical support for full mediation of planfulness ability in the association between learning from the supervisor and readiness for change. Individuals with a high sense of planfulness ability are better prepared to accept and implement change in the workplace. Planfulness ability comprises several aspects, such as having the foresight to anticipate challenges and the ability to take action in order to promote and implement change. Therefore, having a planfulness ability can help individuals to be more ready and prepared for the change in South Asian organizations.