Enhancing the Readiness for Change Role of Intentional Behaviour, Planfulness, and Learning Through Experimentation: An Empirical Study of Indian Employees

In the prevalent VUCA (volatile-uncertain-complex-ambiguous) environment, the readiness for change has become an antidote to survive and thrive. Drawing on change readiness theory, the present study investigates the hypothesised framework, which elucidates whether and how intentional behaviour influences the readiness for change through planfulness and learning through experimentation as mediators in series. Data has been collected from 271 employees working in the manufacturing and I.T. service industries in North India. Structural equation modeling results indicated that intentional behaviour is positively related to readiness for change; furthermore, planfulness and learning through experimentation partially mediated the relationship. The findings highlight important implications for researchers, and management practitioners in developing a proactive mindset, planfulness ability, and fostering a learning culture among employees to enhance their change readiness for successful change initiatives and technology adoption.


INTRodUCTIoN
To maintain pace with volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environments, organizational transformation and change have emerged as critical elements in the life cycle of organizations (Acharya, 2016).Therefore, organizations are obliged to adapt successfully to internal and external environments such as business transformation, globalization, a dynamic economy, and substantial technological advancements for their sustenance and growth in the marketplace (Afsar et al., 2020).To thrive, expand, and sustain a competitive advantage (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2012), organizations continually strive to adjust and evolve in response to changing circumstances (Battilana et al., 2010).Nevertheless, all attempts to change are unsuccessful; 70% of change initiatives fail to achieve the intended objectives (Beer & Nohria, 2000;Dobrovič & Timková, 2017).Vakola (2014) claimed that significant change efforts failed owing to the factors such as an absence of managers and directors' commitment, lack of long-term purpose, inadequate inter-personal communication channels, and overwhelming opposition to change.
In the context of manufacturing and information and technology (I.T.) service industries, these industries have undergone significant transformations due to factors such as the changing economic and legal environment, growing competition, and advancements in technology (Hasan et al., 2021).Consequently, organizations have to adopt new technology and amend to these changes quickly to stay competitive (By et al., 2008).Likewise, enterprises in India have been working hard to become well-known both at the national and international levels by pursuing global business trends, adopting new technologies, and implementing economic and social changes.Implementing these changes posed difficulties, and organizations could not execute them due to numerous aspects.The critical aspect is the "people" and their initial impression and perception of the changes in the organizations (Alqudah et al., 2022).The latest evidence has shown that one of the factors of successful technology adoption and organizational change success is how individuals of the organization (change recipients) respond and act in response to organizational changes, both in the context of the public organization (van der Voet, 2016) and in the context of private organizations (Oreg et al., 2011).In recent times, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is seen that organizations are forced to adopt new technologies at a far more rapid pace than before for the cause of their existence and growth, thus change in employee behavior and readiness for change has become a pre-requisite for bringing organizational change successfully (Chen et al., 2022).Employees' readiness for change is defined as "reflects the extent of individuals' cognitive and emotional tendency to accept and adopt a specific plan to purposefully change the status quo and move forward" (Wang et al., 2020, p. 20).In view of the above arguments, change readiness theory (Holt et al., 2007), comprised of four elements ("change content, change context, change process, and individual attributes"), was considered in the present study.The basic premise of this theory asserts that increasing an individual's readiness for change may be accomplished by promoting agility, learning a conducive environment, management support, instilling a proactive mindset, and developing employees' attributes that are pivotal for successful change initiatives and enhancing the organizations' agility (Nigam & Chavla, 2022).
Therefore, to increase individual readiness for change, organizations must foster their employees' intentional behavior to reduce their resistance to change.Parker et al. (2006) defined "intentional behavior as a subcategory of motivated behavior that is defined as a self-initiated and future-oriented action that aims to change and improve the situation or oneself" (p.636).Grant and Ashford (2008) argued that proactive individuals might predict probable future occurrences, take charge of their career growth, and are adaptable and willing to change.As the significance of change management continues to grow, Mrayyan et al. (2008) have highlighted the scarcity of research in this niche area.In the present research, the authors investigate the role of intentional behavior in enhancing employees' readiness to change.Additionally, two potential mediating variables, planfulness and learning through experimentation, could be crucial in connecting intentional behavior with readiness to change.
The first mediation variable, planfulness, refers to how an individual's behavior and thinking are "goal-oriented" (Ludwig et al., 2019).Coote & Macleod (2012) suggested that individuals with planfulness ability are more likely to deal with difficult situations optimistically.In addition, planfulness has been recommended during the period of change and transformation since it has been shown to be successful in fostering behaviors related to change efforts, such as minimizing resistance (Schlesinger & Kotter, 2008).
Additionally, the environment or change context in which management brings change will impact the individual's response to change.Hampel et al. (2020) asserted that flexible organizations promoting and encouraging experiential learning at the workplace are more likely to accept novel technologies and changes than the more traditional and stiff organizations.Therefore, understanding and enhancing employees' willingness to change requires creating a environment that encourages experiential learning at the workplace.Past studies have indicated that enhancing experimentation culture at the workplace is regarded as a strong driver of new technology adoption or, particularly, innovation acceptance (Goldsmith et al., 2003;Shih & Venkatesh, 2004).
Furthermore, the present study might be significant to have coherent insights on the influence of intentional behavior, planfulness ability, and experiential learning on employees' readiness or willingness to change from practical and theoretical perspectives.From a theoretical perspective, examining intentional behavior, planfulness, and experience-based learning as predictors of readiness to change may offer a novel and insightful perspective on the change process.From a practical viewpoint, the current research's findings lie in helping organizations structure their policies, design and implement effective strategies to foster a learning climate for new technology adoption and implement changes successfully (Cappelli & Tavis, 2018).

THEoRETICAL BACKGRoUNd ANd HyPoTHESIS dEVELoPMENT
Research on change readiness has been particularly important in the recent decade, given the fastpaced nature of science and technology and the ever-increasing need for growth-oriented knowledge workers (Hayes, 2018).As with other areas of management or any other discipline, several notions and theories have explored the phenomenon of change management and contended ways through which individuals or groups can embrace the changes.In recent findings (Alsharari, 2021), change readiness and management has been considered the strong pillar in new change initiative (cloud ERP) such as planning and implementing new technology.The present study employed change readiness theory (Holt et al., 2007), built on a four factors framework: change content, change process, internal context, and individual attributes.Individual readiness for change was defined as a "comprehensive attitude that is influenced simultaneously by the process (i.e., how the change is being implemented), the content (i.e., what is being changed), the context (i.e., circumstances under which the change is occurring such as learning environment), and the individuals attributes (such as intentional behavior, growth-oriented mindset, and planfulness ability)" (Holt et al., 2007, p. 235).This theory suggests a set of beliefs that enhance readiness for change and provide the foundation for successfully executing and implementing new change initiatives in organizations.Schneider and colleagues (1996) claimed that "If people do not change, there is no organizational change and that change persists over the long term only when individuals alter their on-the-job behaviors in appropriate ways" (Choi, 2011, p.480).A comprehensive analysis of previous studies revealed that literature on organizational change has mostly focused on related organizational variables; however, individual aspects, for instance, individual readiness to change, have been mainly ignored (Vakola, 2014) and remain an unexplored area (Cappelli & Tavis, 2018).

Intentional Behaviour and Readiness for Change
Thus, employees' readiness for change has become indispensable for successful organizational change initiatives and is frequently followed by the introduction of change.The introduction of change is congruent with Lewin's idea of the first phase, "unfreezing", as indicated through the actions of people involved in the course of change (Armenakis et al., 1993;Bernerth, 2004).Holt et al. (2007) described readiness to change as "reflects the extent to which an individual or individuals are cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and adopt a particular plan to alter the status quo purposefully" (p.235).Battilana et al. (2010) and Strauss et al. (2012) highlighted in their findings that intentional behavior is a critical factor in enhancing employees' readiness for change.They found that proactively involved employees are more likely to facilitate change in the workplace (Fuller & Marler, 2009).Existing studies indicated that intentional behavior has been associated with various positive outcomes, including risk-taking capability, enhanced individual performance, and organizational effectiveness (Tornau & Frese, 2013).Tan & Nadarajah (2021) collected a sample of 379 public sector employees and highlighted the positive role of intentional and proactive behavior in enhancing the employee's readiness for change.These findings are also confirmed by the research performed by Bakker et al. (2012).Furthermore, intentional behavior empowers employees to embrace change initiatives proactively and thus enhance organizational effectiveness (Alhassan et al., 2021;Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010).In uncertain change events, intentional behaviour on the side of change recipients might potentially be critical for successful change (Oreg et al., 2014).
Moreover, individuals participating in change-promoting actions for instance proactively engaging in daily task-related activities, trial-and-error, advocating for change, and actively taking actions to change oneself positively influences the organization's processes.Also, it has been discovered that intentional behavior is crucial for innovation and transformation in the enterprises (Kickul & Gundry, 2002).
In view of the above arguments, we infer that intentional behavior will positively impact employees' readiness for change.Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis; Hypothesis 1 Intentional behavior has a direct and positive influence on employees' readiness to change.

Intentional behavior, Planfulness, and Readiness to Change
Intentional behavior is change-oriented and future-focused.Intentional behavior enables employees to anticipate, plan and take action in advance about future events (Grant & Ashford, 2008).Bindl & Parker (2010) highlighted the significance of intentional behavior and discovered that employees are found to be better at planfulness ability and craft their careers well.Robitschek et al. (2012) defined planfulness as a "person's ability to organize plans and strategies that enable his/her self-improvement".Plans motivate individuals to work and make them more flexible to change.Furthermore, plans and objectives drive people's activities and generally contribute to human motivation, such as a life or task-specific goal (Pintrich, 2000).Barrick and Mount (1993) indicated that those who make proactive and intentional plans and goals for themselves are more likely to perform better at work.
In empirical findings, Oreg et al. (2011) indicated that employees with higher planfulness ability are more likely to exhibit a favorable attitude toward change and adapt effectively.Similarly, Boyatzis & Saatcioglu (2008) argued that developing employees' planfulness ability is crucial for enhancing individual readiness ability, as it equips employees with the skills to plan strategically and execute the new change initiatives effectively, particularly during the adoption of new technologies at the workplace.Dobrovič & Timková (2017) collected a sample of 287 respondents and found a positive relationship between planfulness and readiness for change.
Furthermore, the authors asserted that planfulness has been found to play an indispensable role during the change process.Altamony et al. (2016) performed a study while implementing an ERP system in the organization.They discovered that planfulness and pre-determined goals are the crucial determinants contributing to a successful change management process.
Employees who are competent at planning or making objectives are more likely to deal with difficult situations cheerfully (Coote & Macleod, 2012).Therefore, planfulness ability and goal-setting have been recommended during periods of change and transformation since it has been shown to be successful in fostering behaviors related to change efforts, such as minimizing resistance (Schlesinger & Kotter, 2008) enhances confidence in employees' ability to change effectively (Bandura & Cervone, 1986;Locke & Latham, 2006), and getting buy-in (Lim & Johnson, 2002).Therefore, enhancing individual change readiness would foster the motivation to seek opportunities to engage positively in the change initiative and perform well during the change process (Sukoco et al., 2022).Furthermore, these change efficacy beliefs are linked to increased effort and persistence in the face of obstacles (Rafferty & Jimmieson, 2010).
Since past studies have indicated a possible relationship between intentional behavior and planfulness (De Clercq et al., 2014;van Dierendonck et al., 2014), as well as planfulness and readiness for change, and there is a possibility that planfulness might mediate the association between intentional behavior and readiness to change.Also, past empirical studies (Bipp & Demerouti, 2015;Parker & Collins, 2010) have suggested proactivity in employees can foster readiness for change by enhancing planfulness ability.Therefore, we hypothesize;

Hypothesis 2a
Intentional behavior has a direct and positive influence on planfulness.Hypothesis 2b Planfulness has a direct and positive influence on employees' readiness for change.Hypothesis 2c Planfulness mediates the impact of intentional behavior on employees' readiness for change.

The Mediating Role of Learning Through Experimentation
Between Intentional Behavior, and Readiness to Change Kraus et al. (2012) and Wiklund and Shepherd (2005) discovered that employees having a growthoriented mindset and intentional behavior become a vital resource for organizational performance in technology-oriented industries, where technological breakthroughs are the accepted norms, and there is a continuous requirement to experiment, learn and innovate (Bailey, 2019;Kırbas, 2018).From a behavioral standpoint, existing studies (Escrig-Tena et al., 2018) indicate that intentional behavior is an important predictor of experimentation.This behavior is defined by workers' self-starting and change-oriented behaviors, making it simpler to spot issues and offer adjustments to enhance the innovativeness of organization processes (Anderson et al., 2014).Nikolova et al. (2014) defined "learning through experimentation as the act of acquiring new or expanding existing knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) through experimenting with new working methods and practices" (p.3).Engida et al. (2022) collected a sample of 514 employees and tested the hypothesis using structural equation modeling and found that a work culture that is empowering and involves employees in learning through experimentation is significantly associated with employees' readiness for change.Furthermore, Nair et al. (2019) investigated the antecedents of readiness for the adoption of IT infrastructure in small and medium enterprises in the Indian context.The authors confirmed that factors such as participation and involvement of employees in experimentation, reengineering flexible business processes (Javidroozi et al., 2019), and management support are more significant antecedents in adopting IT technology at the workplace than other external environmental factors.
Furthermore, recent study findings by Janićijević (2012) and Sukoco et al. (2022) suggested that promoting an experimentation environment at the workplace, where employees are encouraged to perform trial-and-error, are essential to developing the organization's change capacity.In longitudinal research, Drzensky et al. (2012) found that culture, i.e., encouraging employees to experiment and welcoming change, is found to be significantly associated with employees' readiness to change.Additionally, organizations need a human resource competency framework that promotes learning to increase individual readiness to change (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000).Dul and Ceylan (2014) found that individuals that perform in an experimentation-friendly atmosphere are self-motivated and keep a growth-oriented mindset to create meaningful ideas for creativity and innovation.Consequently, learning new skills increases workforce agility and helps people to face unforeseen difficulties with confidence (Sherehiy & Karwowski, 2014).Thomke (2020) stated in his influential research that workers who believe their organizations to be dominant in fostering and encouraging experimentation and innovative initiatives are more likely to result in positive and supportive beliefs about introducing and implementing change successfully in the organization.Predominantly, to the best of our awareness, the influence of learning via experimentation as an antecedent of readiness to change in the Indian context has yet to be explored.
Given the above arguments, existing findings have indicated a positive association between intentional behavior and learning from experimentation and learning from experimentation and employees' readiness to change.Therefore, we infer that learning from experimentation might mediate the relationship between intentional behavior and readiness or willingness to change.Few empirical findings (Lamm et al., 2010;Vakola et al., 2013) have suggested that employees exhibit intentional behavior and engage in learning through experimentation; they become better prepared and adapt to the changes effectively.Accordingly, we hypothesize; Hypothesis 3a Intentional behavior has a direct and positive influence on learning through experimentation.

Hypothesis 3b
Learning through experimentation has a direct and positive influence on employees' readiness to change.Hypothesis 3c Learning from experimentation mediates the impact of intentional behavior on employees' readiness to change.

Sampling Procedure
In the present study, a sample of working professionals from I.T. and manufacturing organizations located in North India participated.A survey questionnaire form was distributed to a random sample of 535 full-time employees, with confidentiality assurances provided through the mail.Among the total sample (n=271), 164 were male (60.5%), and 107 were female (39.5%) (refer to

Intentional Behaviour
Intentional behavior was measured consisting of a four-item scale, which was developed by Robitschek et al. (2012).An example item for intentional behavior is "I look for opportunities to grow as a person".In this study, a seven-point Likert scale was employed ("strongly disagree=1", "strongly agree=7"), with higher ratings indicating greater intentional behavior.The scale's internal consistency, as denoted by the alpha coefficient, was found to be .88for the current research.

Planfulness
Planfulness, a scale composed of a five-items, was developed by Robitschek et al. (2012) and used in this study to measure an individual's planfulness ability.An example item for planfulness includes "I know steps I can take to make intentional changes in myself".A seven-point Likert scale was utilized in this research ("strongly disagree=1", "strongly agree=7"), with higher ratings indicating greater planfulness ability.The scale's internal consistency, as represented by the alpha coefficient, was found to be .92for the current investigation.

Learning through Experimentation
Assessing learning through experimentation was carried out using a three item instrument validated by Nikolova et al. (2014).An example item for this measure is, "In my job, I am offered sufficient time and opportunities to search for new solutions regarding task-related problems" This study employed a seven-point Likert scale ("strongly disagree=1", "strongly agree=7"), where higher scores indicate a stronger inclination towards learning through experimentation.For Indian samples, the internal consistency, as indicated by the alpha coefficients, was .82.

Readiness for Change
The readiness for change comprised of four item scale established by Robitschek et al. (2012).An example item for assessing readiness to change is, "I know when I need to make a specific change in myself".In this research, a seven-point Likert scale was employed ("strongly disagree=1", "strongly agree=7"), with higher scores indicating a greater readiness for change.The internal consistency of this scale, as denoted by the alpha coefficient, was found to be .88 in the current investigation.

Control Variables
The present study's analysis included age, work experience, and gender as variables to control for potential confounding effects.Past studies (Meyers et al., 2015;Shah, 2011) have indicated gender might be related to readiness to change.Furthermore, Wiersema & Bantel (1992) asserted that age (Drzensky et al., 2012) and work-experience (Oreg, 2006) are negatively related to employees' readiness to change.Furthermore, Spector & Brannick (2011) suggested that in quantitative research, such as regression study, it is essential to statistically control demographic variables to mitigate any potentially misleading or confounding impacts that could affect the relationships between the variables under investigation.Therefore, gender, age, and job experience were included as control variables during the investigation of the proposed model.All the control variables were measured categorically.Specifically, data for gender was collected through two categories where 0 was denoted as "Male", and 1 was denoted as a "Female".For age, the 21-35 years age group were coded as 0, the 36-50 years of age group were coded as 1, and the 51-65 years of age group was coded as 2. Similarly, the category denoting 1-10 years of work experience was coded as 0, 11-20 years of work experience was coded as 1, and 20 years and above were coded as 2.

Common Method Bias
The Harman's single factor test was taken into consideration to evaluate and verify the presence of common-method variance, as the sample for the examined factors were obtained from a single source.SPSS software was used to perform unrotated factor analysis.The highest variance accounted for by a single-factor was 36.5%, which falls below the suggested threshold of 50 percent (Podsakoff et al., 2003).This evidence indicates that common method bias (CMB) did not pose a problem in the present study.Subsequently, the results were compared to a correlation matrix to ascertain if any correlations exceeded 0.9 value (Pavlou et al., 2007).Table 2 demonstrate correlations among variables are under the threshold value, corroborate that common method bias was not a concern in the present study.

Normality and Multi-Collinearity Check
Before hypotheses testing, data were tested for normality using skewness and kurtosis measures.The study variables showed skewness ranging from -1.09 to -.70 and kurtosis values ranging from -.072 to 1.05, within the permissible limits of -2 to +2 for skewness and -7 to +7 for kurtosis (Byrne, 2013;Darren & Paul, 1999).Findings showed that data in the present study were normally distributed.Also, the data shows that multi-collinearity was not an issue in the present study since VIF (variance inflation factor) values of all study variables (Intentional behavior = 1.586;Planfulness = 1.693;Learning through Experimentation = 1.887;Readiness for change = 1.557) were below 4.0, and tolerance factor (Intentional behavior = .630;Planfulness = .591;Learning through Experimentation = .530;Readiness for change = .642)were above the permissible value .10(Millar & Shevlin, 2003).

Analytical Strategy
Initially, in this statistical analysis, confirmatory factor analysis was performed to measure this study's discriminant and convergent validity using R studio software.The following discriminant and convergent validity have been successfully confirmed for our sample; then, the proposed hypothesized framework was examined using structural equation modeling (SEM) in SPSS version 27.0.The standardized path coefficients and fit statistics were calculated and reported.Bootstrapping (with 5000 iterations) was performed to test the mediation effect, as it is often regarded as the most robust indirect effect testing technique (Williams & MacKinnon, 2008).

Measurement Model Results
We framed a four-factor measurement model.The alpha coefficients, CR (Composite reliability), factor loadings (standardized), and t-value are described in table 3. The Cronbach alpha value for all considered constructs varied between 0.82 to 0.92.The acceptable alpha reliability criterion is .70(Hussain et al., 2019).All 16 items' factor loadings (standardized) varied between 0.71 to 0.92.Since factor loadings are more than 0.50, it exhibited convergent validity (Asif et al., 2019).For all the items, t-values exceed the cut-off criterion of 1.96 (Asif et al., 2019), indicating that our model is significant.Similarly, the CR is more than 0.60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), ranging between 0.86 to 0.94.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A model fit was measured and analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis.Before performing mediation analysis, CFA (Confirmatory factor analysis) is widely carried out to test the model fit (Credé & Harms, 2015).The model consisting of four latent constructs-intentional behavior, planfulness, learning from experimentation, and readiness to change-demonstrated a good fit with the data, exhibiting appropriate values (χ 2 (98, n=271) = 149.664,χ2/df = 1.52; p-value < 0.01, CFI (Comparative Fit Index) = 0.998, GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) = 0.996, RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) = 0.04, SRMR = 0.04, TLI = 0.998) recommended by Hooper et al. (2008) (See Table 4, Model Fit Measures).We compared the baseline measurement model with the other five models (one-factor, two-factor, and three-factor, see Table 5).Firstly, for the model with the threefactor model, we clubbed intentional behavior and planfulness into one factor.For another model with three factors, we clubbed intentional behavior and learning through experimentation in one factor.In the third model with three-factor, we clubbed planfulness and learning from experimentation in one factor.Likewise, for the model with two-factor, we clubbed intentional behavior, planfulness, and learning through experimentation in one factor.Finally, in the model with one factor, all the variables of intentional behaviour, planfulness, learning from experimentation, and readiness to change were clubbed into one factor.As shown in Table 5 (Confirmatory Factor analysis Results), the baseline measurement model of our studied variables was a better fit than all the nested models.

Hypothesis Testing
We employed PROCESS macro (Model 4) (Hayes, 2013) to evaluate the study's hypotheses, which revolved around the parallel mediation between intentional behavior and employees' readiness to change through planfulness and learning through experimentation.Intentional behavior that impacts readiness to change was found significant and positive (β standardized path estimate = 0.422, p < 0.001); therefore, H1 was accepted.
The results indicate that the intentional behavior positively relates to planfulness (β=0.584,p<0.001), thereby supporting H2a.Furthermore, planfulness was found to be positively associated with readiness to change (β=0.320,p<0.001), supported H2b.In addition, findings revealed that intentional behavior was positively associated with the second mediator, i.e., learning from experimentation (β=0.259,p<0.001), thereby supporting H3a.Furthermore, learning from the experimentation was also discovered to be significantly associated with readiness to change (β=0.099,p<0.05), hence supporting H3b.
Furthermore, to examine the mediation hypotheses, a bootstrapping process involving 5000 random iterations and a confidence interval of 95% was implemented.These confidence intervals were applied to test indirect effects for simple mediation hypotheses.The findings showed that planfulness acts as a partial mediator in the association between intentional behaviour and employees' readiness to change.The indirect effect was discovered to be significant and positive (β=0.187,SE=0.048,LLCI=0.97,ULCI=0.288);therefore, H2c is found to be supported.Learning through experimentation was found to partially mediate the association between intentional behavior and employees' readiness to change.However, the indirect effect was observed to be less strong (β=0.026,Standard Error=0.016,Lower limit=0.010,Upper limit=0.061); as a result, it confirmed that H2c is indeed supported.In addition, it was observed that both the mediators, i.e., planfulness and learning through experimentation, partially and significantly mediate the influence of intentional behavior on readiness for change (β=0.212,Standard Error=0.049,Lower Limit=0.121,Upper Limit=0.315).It was discovered that the overall indirect effect was more significant than individual indirect effects combined together.Thus, the findings provide substantial support for the hypothesized parallel mediation model.

dISCUSSIoN
The aim of the present study is to add to the expanding body of knowledge on readiness for change by experimentally analyzing its antecedents and broadening our knowledge of this construct in the realm of change management.Based on the change readiness theory (Holt et al., 2007), we hypothesized that intentional behavior would help in successfully executing the unfreezing step by increasing individual readiness for change, both directly and indirectly, via the parallel mediation mechanisms of improving    The purpose of this study was to fill the research gap by addressing a shortage of empirical data in the literature about the impact of intentional behavior in the context of readiness for change.First, we examined the association between intentional behaviour and employees' willingness to change.
Our results indicate that intentional behavior positively impacts employee readiness for change, which supports previous studies that found that individuals who are proactive and self-starters are more effective in successfully bringing change to the organization (Bindl & Parker, 2011;Parker et al., 2019).
Second, the authors investigated the association of intentional behavior with planfulness and learning through experimentation.Our results indicate that intentional behavior positively affects individuals' planfulness ability, thereby corroborating previous studies' findings (Reinke et al., 2014;Zhou et al., 2013).Findings indicate that proactive people set realistic plans and goals for personal and professional growth.Our results also indicate that intentional behavior positively affects learning through experimentation, in line with previous research findings.Results suggest that individuals having intentional behavior have a growth-oriented mindset and seek opportunities to learn and explore.They take more initiative and experiment with new methods and procedures for doing the same task.
Third, the authors investigated the association of planfulness and learning through experimentation with readiness for change.Planfulness was found to have a positive influence on employees' willingness and readiness to change.These findings adds to the literature unexplored on this construct in the purview of change readiness.Planful individuals are likely to be more change-oriented and productive, which enhances their readiness for change.These findings are in line with past findings (Altamony et al., 2016;Dobrovič & Timková, 2017).
Furthermore, a positive association was found between learning from experimentation and employees' readiness to change.These results corroborate the existing findings (Engida et al., 2022;Thomke, 2020), suggested that promoting an experimentation culture in the workplace fosters employees' readiness for change.These findings provide an additional empirical contribution to the existing literature, helping to fill the research gap on the effects of learning from experimentation in the context of change readiness.
Fourth, we examined the mediating roles of planfulness and learning from experimentation in the association between intentional behavior and employees' preparedness for change.In both the mediation, significant indirect impacts were found, suggesting that planfulness and learning through experimentation both partially mediate the relationship between intentional behaviour and individuals' willigness to embrace change.In other words, intentional behavior indirectly enhances individual readiness for change by stimulating planfulness and fostering learning through experimentation.Additionally, the parallel mediation framework investigated in this study permitted a comparison of the two indirect effects on a relative basis.It was discovered that the indirect effect through planfulness is more significant, i.e., the developing planfulness ability is a relatively more effective mechanism through which intentional behavior enhances readiness for change.This is primarily because planfulness was shown to be a more powerful determinant of readiness for change than learning through experimentation.

Theoretical Implications
Theoretically, the present research asserted that change readiness theory (Holt et al., 2007) is a valuable framework that has been claimed to enhance the employees' readiness for change by shedding light on key components such as intentional behaviour, planfulness, and experiential learning.It is based on the evidence that successful changes largely depend upon employees' willingness and ability to change (Jung et al., 2020).The theory proposes that employees who are more ready for change are more likely to be involved in behaviors that foster change and are more effective in accomplishing their goals.Employees who are intentional and proactive are likely to persist in their actions to accomplish their goals, even when faced with setbacks and challenges.Furthermore, the theory proposes that change context (such as open culture to experiment and learn) significantly enhances the readiness for change.Therefore, employees who are given the opportunity to experiment and learn from their experiences are found to adapt and embrace the changes quickly and adjust their behaviors accordingly.
However, the present research findings also extend the application of change readiness theory to the broad context of manufacturing and service organizations in the Indian context.Precisely, the application of change readiness theory can enable employees to become more intentional, planful, and open to experimentation, ultimately enhancing their readiness for change and increasing their chances of achieving their goals.Overall, the present study findings have contributed evidence empirically consistent with the study's hypothesis with the assumptions of change readiness theory.

Practical Implications
The current research findings would be valuable mainly for the organizations in which (1) new technology has been adopted or implemented, (2) where innovation is the strong competitive advantage in the business environment, (3) and researchers and practitioners who are considering antecedents of enhancing the employees' readiness for change.
This study suggested that individuals with intentional behavior are more planful, possess a proactive mindset, and are more likely to accept organizational changes, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the change process.These findings corroborate the findings of existing studies (Nair et al., 2019), highlighted that employees with high individual readiness for change are found to be flexible and adopt new technology quickly.
Individuals with a high degree of resistance to change should be given more opportunities to develop planfulness ability in order to increase adaptability to change.The findings emphasized that individuals with a proactive approach and planfulness ability have a positive outlook toward the technological changes and adaptations in the organization, resulting in overall organizational success.These findings are in line with the recent research findings, which suggested that intentional behavior (Tan & Nadarajah, 2021) and planfulness (Dobrovič & Timková, 2017) are necessary antecedents in enhancing the employees' readiness for change.
Furthermore, change management practitioners can make their change process more acceptable and reduce the resistance from employees by understanding and evaluating the degree of planfulness among employees.Furthermore, the current findings corroborating the past empirical study showed that enhancing employees' readiness for change benefitted the organization in planning and successful implementation of new technology infrastructure at the workplace (Ram et al., 2015).
In addition, this study suggests that managers and change management practitioners should pay more attention to creating an environment of learning through experimentation where employees are encouraged, rewarded, and motivated to learn by doing.Learning through experimentation enhances employees' readiness and the innovative ability to use new methods to perform routine tasks.As a result, it fosters their capability to adapt and adjust according to the VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) environment.Thus, practitioners can design processes that encourage learning through experimentation in the organization in order to make their change programs more effective and successful.The findings of the present research are in line with past findings, which suggested that the employees showed a higher degree of readiness for change, especially at the time of adoption of new technology, when they are given an opportunity to learn and experiment (Andries et al., 2013;Hampel et al., 2020).

STRENGTH, LIMITATIoNS, ANd FUTURE RESEARCH dIRECTIoNS
Structural equation modeling was employed to estimate the whole parallel mediation framework simultaneously, which is a strength of the present study to compare the direct and indirect impact of both mediating factors.As a result, the parallel mediation framework enabled the extraction of more detailed theoretical insights into the processes through which intentional behavior influences employees' readiness to change.
In the current research employed a cross-sectional research approach, which limits our capacity to infer the cause-and-effect association among variables.To resolve and address this limitation, recommended steps were adopted to logically and theoretically justify the proposed hypothesized relationship.Furthermore, the present study comprised a diverse population with varying characteristics, which may result in the heterogenous association among variables.Heterogeneity can make it challenging to infer the results and determine the underlying relationship and patterns.Therefore, future studies can pursue a longitudinal study design to find out the cause-and-effect relationship among variables.
Furthermore, the present research focuses on full-time employees in India working in the manufacturing and IT service sectors.However, the findings of the present study cannot be generalized to people with different cultural backgrounds and employed in other industries.The existing research scope can be expanded by replicating longitudinal studies in different cultural backgrounds.

CoNCLUSIoN
The current research adds to the existing scholarship on individuals' readiness to change through investigating the association among intentional-behavior, planfulness, learning from experimentation, and individuals' change readiness behavior for the first time.Comprehending how to enhance the employees' readiness for change through change context and individual attributes is pivotal in the view of change implementation and innovation in the organization.Drawing on change readiness theory, the authors have provided empirical evidence of the impact of intentional behavior in enhancing individuals' readiness for change and the parallel mediation mechanism played by planfulness and learning through experimentation.Authors argued that individuals proactively involved and taking initiatives are more likely to influence their change readiness ability.Furthermore, individuals who are planful and experimenting, and learning will be ready for the new change initiatives in the organization.

ACKNowLEdGMENT
• "All authors of this article declare there are no conflict of interest."• This study did not receive any funding support from public, commercial or non-profit organization agency.
Figure 1.Proposed Model planfulness ability and simultaneously fostering an experimentation-friendly work environment.The findings of the present research broadly support the hypothesized parallel mediation framework.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Standardized path coefficients for the proposed parallel mediation model

Table 1
, Demographic characteristics of respondents).A majority of respondents (81.5%) were between the age group of 21 and 35, and 65.3% hold a postgraduate degree.Out of the 271 respondents, 211 worked in private organizations.Therefore, the sample of the present research effectively represented the research objectives.

Table 3 . Analysis of measurement model Construct Items Cronbach Alpha Item labels Factor Loadings Standard Error t-value Composite Reliability
Note: *** p<0.001 (2-tailed)

Table 6 . Summary of parallel mediation model
INT = Intentional Behaviour; PLAN = Planfulness; LEXP = Learning through Experimentation; READY = Readiness for Change.This table demonstrates the parallel mediator model summary regression coefficient and standard errors (S.E.).M1: Mediator first, M2: Mediator second. Note:

Table 7 .
UpperLimit Confidence Interval, LLCI-Lower limit confidence interval, 5000 sample Bootstrapping procedure was put into use.