[11] noted the importance of reframing the problem of change from resistance to change to readiness for change (RFC). They argued that, “using the term readiness instead of resistance is more congruent with the roles that the coaches and champions play in introducing change” ( [11] p. 132). Organizations need to focus on the employees since they constitute the engine for driving change into its right destination. To be successful, organizational change initiatives must be supported, adopted and implemented effectively by employees [12] [13] [14] . Therefore, individuals’ readiness is salient for the failure success of organizational change [11] [15] .

Individual readiness for organizational change has been defined severally; for example, [16] defined RFC as, “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” ( [17] p. 235). While [2] defined RFC as the individual’s cognitive assessment that makes him either embrace or oppose any change initiative. Regardless of the variations in the conceptualization of individual readiness, the consensus is that individual RFC requires an individual’s belief that change is necessary, applicable and can bring about positive outcomes [5] [16] [17] .

Ample individual RFC has proven to be a critical antecedent to the successful implementation of changes [18] . A study conducted by [15] revealed that employees with a higher level of readiness in the early stage of change implementation showed more willingness to adjust their behaviors to support the change initiative.

[19] stated that change programs failed due to lack of the necessary psychological preparation and support for individuals which paralyzes the organizations embarking on change initiatives. The significance of individual’s readiness for change has been compelling for organizations to further work on preparing employees and focus on individual change management.

Many researchers examined the factors that predict individual RFC in order to provide more understanding of this phenomenon.

Studies [5] [15] [16] [18] concluded that individual RFC was influenced by an array of factors such as social relations in the workplace, organizational commitment, flexible policies and procedures, emotional exhaustion and depression, personal resilience, affective commitment, and general attitude [4] [15] [16] [20] .

The origins of EI date back to [21] social intelligence refers the ability to identify and manage relations with others. However, the first formal model of EI was developed by [22] . Their model became known as the “ability” model and comprised of three areas; appraisal and expression of emotion, regulation of emotion, and utilization of emotion as intelligence.

The concept of EI gained popularity when [7] published his book, “Emotional Intelligence”, and has been the most influential of the scientific conceptualization of EI.

The research of [22] [23] have inspired, shaped and guided subsequent frameworks and conceptualizations of EI. The theoretical framework of EI as an ability was posited by [24] as a set of skills and personal competencies. Furthermore, EI is defined as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action” ( [22] , p. 189). Additionally, [17] conceptualized EI as comprising a set of abilities that may be utilized to understand the individual’s own as well as other’s emotions, and to think and behave rationally. On the other hand, [23] perceived EI as set of learned skills and competencies. Many studies emphasized the impact of EI on some organizational outcomes as, employee effectiveness, performance, transformational leadership, leadership capacity, career commitment, managerial advancement, and organizational change [25] [26] [27] . Earlier researchers have confirmed the significance of EI in dealing with change [23] [24] . This argument was advanced by other researchers. For example, [8] found that EI contributed to the individual’s adaptation and facilitate revolutionary change process. In another study by [6] the results showed that individuals with high EI can cope with workplace stresses that might occur as a consequence of organizational change.

A study conducted by [9] was designed to examine the relationships of EI, organizational commitment, and leadership behavior as influences on organization RFC in a higher education institution; concluded that RFC was affected by EI, organizational commitment and transactional leadership behavior. A recent study conducted by [28] examined the effects of leadership behavior and EI on RFC among employees in public institutions of higher education in Malaysia found, among other findings, that EI had a significant effect on employees’ RFC. [10] investigated the relationship of EI with the cultural quotient (CQ) using a population sample of 109 mid-level managers in the public sector. The results found that Emotional Quotient (EQ) had significantly positive relationship with change readiness (r = 0.513) and the subscales of change readiness were also positively related with EQ.

Based on the previous discussion, the following hypothesis was developed:

H1: Emotional Intelligence (EI) is positively associated with employee’s readiness for change.

Table 1 shows that Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.894 for the whole questionnaire, 0.884 for the EI and 0.856 for the RFC. Therefore the questionnaire was reliable because the recommended cutoff is 0.70 according to experts such as [30] (Table 1).

The current study examined the level of EI and its effect on employee’s RFC. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data of EI (minimum, maximum, mean and Standard Deviation). The overall mean score was 3.7897 with a St.Dev of 0.39651, which is considered a high level in 5 point Likert Scale; since mean score ≥ 3.40 (Table 2).

Descriptive statistics for Readiness for change show that overall mean score for Readiness for change was 5.6034 with a St.Dev of 0.78486, which considered a high level of agreements in 5-point Likert Scale; since mean score ≥ 3.40 (Table 3).

Spearman’s rho test was performed to test the association between demographic variables and EI. Emotional intelligence was classified into two levels, low and high. The low level for mean score < 4 which found for (N = 47, 70.1%), and the high level had mean score ≥ 4 which found for (N = 20, 29.9%). Likewise, RFC was classified into two levels, low and high; where low level had mean score < 5 which found for (N = 11, 16.4%), and high level for mean score ≥5 which found for (N = 56, 83.6%).

Each participant with high level in EI, where N = 18, 26.9% had high level in RFC, except two participants. However, 38, 56.7% with low level of EI had high level of RFC. Spearman’s rho value was found to be 0.330 with P-value of 0.006 < 0.05, indicated moderately association between levels of EI and RFC (Table 4).

Simple Linear Regression was utilized in which the dependent variable was RFC and the independent variable was EI. The result shows that the model was significant with the P-value < 0.05, and R = 0.356 and R-square = 0.127; meaning EI showed 13% of the variation in the dependent variable (RFC).

Absence of multicollinearity was checked by conducting correlations among the dependent variables. Each pair of dependent variables were found moderately related without any correlation over 0.80, concluded no multicollinearity among variables (VIF < 3). Also assumption for normality for the residual was met. F-ANOVA had P-value less than 0.05 indicate significant model; such independent variables explained variation in the dependent variable. Regression coefficient Beta for EI was 0.704 with (P < 0.05), indicate that for every increase in EI, predictor variable, by one scale unit, the RFC, dependent variable, will increase by 0.704 unit (Table 5).

Association between RFC and demographic variables was determined by Chi-square test which showed that there was a statistically significant association between RFC and education level among participants (P < 0.05). Participants

**: P-value significant at level 0.05 or less.

with master’s degree had high level with 55.2% of the total sample. However, there was no association between other demographic variables and RFC or EI (P > 0.05) (Table 6).