ROLE THEORY PERSPECTIVE ON RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Research Master Thesis, RMScE&B, specialization Human Resource

Management and

Organizational Behavior

Master Thesis MScBA, specialization Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Human Resource Management

November 22nd, 2013

EMIR DZINIC

Studentnumber: 1606573

Bilderdijklaan 73

9721 PS Groningen

e-mail: e.dzinic@student.rug.nl

1st Supervisor

O.Janssen

2nd Supervisor

C.Reezigt

1

Role Theory Perspective on Resistance to Change: Self-control

Demands linking Role Stressors to Resistance to Change: A

Mediation Study

Abstract

The present study examined the association between role

stressors and resistance to change, and the mediating role of

self-control demands, by using role theory and self-control

theory as theoretical lenses. Using survey data, collected from

97 employees from an intermediary agency firm in the

Netherlands, I found that self-control demands mediated the

positive relationship between role conflict/ role overload and

resistance to change. The findings suggest that role stressors

should be seen as important antecedents of resistance to

change, and that performing self-control activities leads to

resistant cognitions, emotions and behaviours, due to elevation

efforts in self-control. Implications of these findings and

future research considerations are discussed.

2

INTRODUCTION

Due to increasing

uncertainty and turbulence in

the organizational

environment, organizational

members` capacity for change

has become critical to the

survival of the organization

(Kotter & Schelsinger, 1979;

Peccei, Giangreco &

Sebastiano, 2011).

Transformations within the

broad spectrum of private,

public and non-profit

organizations are occurring

at an unprecedented pace

(Self, Armenakis & Schraeder,

2007), and this severity has

had a major influence on the

effectiveness of employees

and organizations (Caldwell &

Liu, 2011). This makes the

3

investigation of the change

phenomenon an important topic

in the organizational and

management literature.

Although many transformations

or changes are justifiable,

the organizational outcomes

often fail to meet the

anticipated objectives

(Gilmore, 1997). Research

showed that more than half to

two-thirds of change

initiatives fail (Beer &

Nohria, 2000; Kotter, 1995;

and Quinn, 2004). In his

extensive literature review,

Burnes (2004) suggested that

this figure may be even

higher.

Various researchers have

suggested varied obstacles to

change, among them the

isomorphic forces generated

by the organizational

environment (Greenwood &

Higgins, 1996), politics

between competing groups

(Pettigrew, 1973), and poor

change leadership and support

(Quinn, 2004). However, most

researchers emphasize that

the main obstacle to

organizational change

achievement is human

resistance (Giangreco &

Peccei, 2005; Self et al.,

2007; Szabla, 2007; Waddell &

Sohal, 1998).

Human resistance, or

resistance to change (RTC) is

frequently used in the

research and practitioner

literature on organizational

change, as an explanation for

why efforts to introduce

large-scale changes in

technology, production

methods, procedures,

management practices or

compensation systems, fail or

fall short of expectations

(Oreg, 2007). RTC is

primarily portrayed as an

“unwarranted and detrimental

response residing in the

change recipients and which

4

arises spontaneously as a

reaction to change,

independent of the

interactions and

relationships between the

change agents and change

recipients” (Ford, Ford &

D`Amelio, 2008:362).

Much research has been

done on the consequences of

RTC for organizations and

organizational members, but

the research on the

antecedents of this construct

remains rather patchy. As a

result, there is a lack of

systematic research to test

insights and arguments in

this research area,

especially the importance of

different potential

antecedents of RTC in the

organizational reality

(Giangreco & Peccei, 2005).

Earlier research on RTC

addressed some of the

following antecedents: age

and gender (Davis & Songer,

2009), benefits of change and

involvement in change

(Giangreco & Peccei, 2005),

role of information and self-

efficacy (Jimmieson, Terry, &

Callan, 2004), social support

(Lawrence & Callan, 2011),

and leader-member exchange

(Van Dam, Oreg, & Schyns,

2008). Surprisingly, no

research has addressed the

influence of role stressors

on RTC, although some

research on stress and coping

(Baillien & De Witte, 2009;

Jimmieson et al., 2004;

Tiong, 2005) suggest that

role stressors take a

potentially important place

in the change context.

Therefore, in the

current study I will use role

theory (Kahn et al., 1964) to

address potential antecedents

of RTC. Specifically, I will

focus on the concepts of role

conflict, role ambiguity and

role overload as sources of

5

role stress, to explain the

occurrence of RTC. Tiong

(2005) suggested that change

and stress are closely

related to each other. When

change occurs, employees can

often experience role stress.

Individuals can be stressed

by role conflict (being

caught between conflicting

job demands), role ambiguity

(not knowing what the

expectations for the job

are), and role overload (too

many tasks given).

To clarify the

relationship between role

stressors and RTC, I

introduce the concept of

self-control demands as the

underlying mechanism between

the two constructs. Self-

control theory (Muraven &

Baumeister, 2000) posits that

role stressors are related to

self-control processes, and

that subsequent use of self-

control reduces future self-

control activities (Diestel &

Schmidt, 2012). The lack of

self-control resources

impairs cognitive, emotional,

and behavioral actions, which

potentially can clarify why

individuals have spontaneous

negative reactions towards

change programs. I will try

to expand our understanding

around how role stressors,

caused by the change content,

influence self-control, and

ultimately RTC. I therefore

want to address the following

research questions: To what

extent do role stressors, caused by a

change, influence subsequent

reactions towards the change (i.e.

resistance to change)? And how do

self-control demands explain the

relationship between role stressors and

resistance to change?

In this study I

investigated a change program

at an intermediary agency

organization in the

Netherlands, where the front

6

line agency function

underwent fundamental changes

in the procedures, target

system and work content. The

aim was to investigate why

certain aspects of this

change program failed, and to

provide an explanation for

the occurrence of RTC.

The present paper

transcends previous work on

reactions to change in

several ways. First, this

current study is the first of

its kind to address RTC from

a role theory perspective.

Role theory, used as the

predominant theoretical lens

can provide us a

comprehensive explanation for

why individuals have

difficulties with changes in

the work context. Second,

studies on RTC are typically

focused on the investigation

of antecedents of employee

reactions (Van Dam et al.,

2008). I, on the other hand,

propose that the process of

self-control relates to

employees` reactions to

change (i.e. RTC), implying a

mediation process. Third,

this study extends knowledge

by studying RTC among

employees within a large

Dutch organization, whereas

studies on RTC have been

conducted primarily in the

United States context.

With the current study I

contribute to the practice as

well, because the resulting

findings will show the

importance of how

characteristics of work roles

impact employees’ reactions

to change. The anticipated

insights are plausible in

helping organizations to

better prepare their

employees for future changes,

especially changes in the

work content. Organizations

that consider implementing

changes, should address

7

difficulties with role

stressors and self-control

demands, and approach their

detrimental influence on RTC,

with caution.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Role Stressors and Resistance

to Change

Role stressors

Work-related role stressors

are one of the most studied

constructs in organizational

behavior literature (Eatough

et al., 2011). Role stressors

include role conflict, role

ambiguity and role overload.

Role conflict refers to

contradictory expectations

from and between colleagues

that interfere with one

another, which makes it

difficult to complete work

assignments (Eatough et al.,

2011). Occupying multiple

work roles within a function

has the potential to result

in opposing role

requirements. Role conflict

for example occurs when the

intermediary agent in the

current study believes that

the demands and expectations

of his or her boss, and the

customer are incompatible.

Role ambiguity refers to

unclear and vague

expectations set for

employees, resulting in felt

uncertainty by employees

about what is expected of

them. There is a lack of

information with regards to

the specificity and

predictability about

objectives, duties, and

responsibilities for a

particular role (Kahn et al.,

1964). In the case of the

intermediary agent, he or she

might feel uncertain about

the expectations of different

stakeholders in his or her

8

role set (e.g., senior

manager, intermediary agents,

and clients).

Individuals experience

role overload, when role demands

create the perception that

available resources are

inadequate to deal with them,

and therefore result in

distraction and stress

(Brown, Jones & Leigh, 2005).

Role overload is about having

not enough time to complete

too many role tasks (Michel

et al., 2011). Role overload

thus describes situations

where the intermediary agents

feel that the available time,

their abilities and other

constraints are not

sufficient to perform all the

expected responsibilities and

activities (Rizzo, House &

Lirtzman, 1970).

There are research

findings in abundance that

suggest that role stressors

have detrimental effects on

job satisfaction,

organizational commitment,

emotional exhaustion, tension

and anxiety (e.g. Eatough et

al., 2011; Fried et al.,

2008; Ortqvist & Wincent,

2006). Noteworthy is that

research often concluded that

role overload has the weakest

relationship with the above

mentioned employee reactions,

compared to role conflict and

role ambiguity. Gilboa et al.

(2008) suggested that this

relationship magnitude

difference can be attributed

to how these role stressors

are appraised by employees.

They suggested that employees

evaluate each stressor on two

dimensions. First, hindrance,

addresses the extent to which

role stressors are conceived

as threatening to individuals

achievements in the work

context. Second, challenge,

addresses the extent to which

9

role stressors are approached

as potential

opportunities for learning

and achievement of goals.

Role conflict has been

suggested to have a slightly

higher challenge component

compared to role ambiguity,

because employees have to

bargain their way out between

contradictory expectations in

order to satisfy the demands

(Eatough et al., 2011).

Further, role ambiguity is

seen as a pure hindrance,

with a small amount of

challenge component (Gilboa

et al., 2008). Lastly, role

overload has been suggested

to have both strong hindrance

and challenge components,

because the overwhelming

demands on employees exceed

their abilities or coping

resources, but it also asks

from employees to take more

responsibilities in order to

develop themselves (Eatough

et al., 2011; Gilboa et al.,

2008).

Resistance to change

Individuals or employees tend

to respond to change in a

variety of ways (Piderit,

2000). Therefore, it is not

surprising that researchers

have often focused on

different aspects of the

change phenomenon, when

examining responses to change

(Peccei et al., 2008).

Researchers have studied

employee responses to change

in terms of, for example,

‘’openness to change‘’

(Wanberg & Banas, 2000),

‘’readiness for change’’

(Armenakis & Harris, 2002),

‘’resistance to change’’

(Oreg, 2003), ‘’cynicism

towards the change’’ (Wanous,

Reichers & Austin, 2000), and

‘’ambivalence towards the

change’’ (Piderit, 2000).

10

The focus in the present

study is on employee

resistance to change (RTC).

Traditionally RTC has been

viewed in relatively negative

terms: a sign of failure

(Armenakis & Harris, 2002) or

a problem that has to be

eliminated (Nadler, 1993).

Recently, a more positive

approach to RTC has become

common in the literature,

where RTC is seen as a

natural, acceptable

phenomenon (Giangreco &

Peccei, 2005). RTC, can for

example, like pain, be seen

as an alarm signal, and serve

as a warning to failure of

the change process. Others

argue that resistance is a

prerequisite of successful

change, and can provide

constructive feedback to the

change process, if managed

appropriately (King &

Anderson, 1995).

According to Dent and

Goldberg (1999b), members of

organizations resist not

necessarily the change

itself, but the negative

consequences. Others suggest

that the term is used as a

means to overshadow

employees` legitimate reasons

for resisting change (Nord &

Jermier, 1994).

I follow the suggestions

made by Piderit (2000) and

Oreg (2003; 2007), and view

therefore the RTC construct

as a multidimensional

attitude towards change,

comprising affective,

cognitive and behavioral

components. The idea is that

some sources of resistance

may have their strongest

impact on employees’

behaviors, others may more

directly influence their

emotions, and yet others, may

most influence what employees

rationally think about the

11

change. These three

components reflect the three

different manifestations of

people’s evaluations of an

object or situation (McGuire,

1985). The behavioral

component involves actions to

act in response to the change

(e.g. complaining about the

change, don`t championing the

change, don’t engage in new

required activities); the

affective component is

concerned with how one feels

about the change (e.g.

anxious, angry); and the

cognitive component regards

what one thinks about the

change (e.g. Will it be

beneficial? Is it

necessary?). These three are

not independent of one

another, but should

nevertheless be seen as

distinct components, which

highlight different aspects

of the resistance phenomenon

(Oreg, 2007).

In summary I will use

this view, because it

captures the complexity of

RTC, and could provide an

improved understanding of the

antecedents and consequences

of RTC. RTC is thus viewed as

a subjective and complex,

tri-dimensional construct

(Oreg, 2007).

Relationship between role

stressors and resistance to

change

In summary, I propose that

the implementation of change

causes role stressors to

occur (Thiong, 2005), and

ultimately instigating RTC.

The exposure to these role

stressors may cause employees

to adversely evaluate their

current working conditions

(Glazer & Beehr, 2005),

implying that individuals

could perceive incompatible

demands, incompatible

expectations, and inadequate

12

resources in their daily

work, due to a specific

change. The experiencing of

role conflict, role ambiguity

and role overload can, on

behalf of the employees, be

linked to the implemented

change, and encourage the

formation of resistant

cognitions, emotions and

behaviors, as an answer to

these role stressors, a sort

of coping mechanism. In line

with the abovementioned, I

propose the following

hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Role Conflict is positively

related to Resistance to Change.

Hypothesis 2: Role Ambiguity is

positively related to Resistance to

Change.

Hypothesis 3: Role Overload is

positively related to Resistance to

Change.

Self-control demands as a

mediator

Role stressors and self-

control demands

Employees are confronted with

work that is characterized by

volatile and dynamic

environments, where

flexibility, adaptability,

and self-management have

become an imperative in the

work context (Schmidt,

Neubach & Heuer, 2007).

Further, these dynamic and

novel situations require the

individual to solve

unfamiliar problems that

involve high levels of

ambiguity and uncertainty.

Planned organizational change

is a particular situation

which requires these

imperatives from employees.

When employees are confronted

with changes in their work,

13

and more specifically in

their function, role

stressors can come to the

fore (Tiong, 2005).

The newly created work

demands, which are

accompanied by role

stressors, cannot be

approached with automated and

rigid patterns of behavior.

Schmidt et al. (2007)

suggested that considerable

self-control is required in

these work contexts. Using

the influential distinction

between automatic and

controlled processes, where

automatic processes are

stimulus-driven and

inflexible, whereas

controlled processes are top-

down regulated and flexible,

I try to develop an

explanation for the

occurrence of RTC. Self-

control involves inhibiting

habitual, automatic or

spontaneous action

tendencies, emotions, urges,

or desires that have the

potential to interfere with

purposeful planned behavior

(Baumeister, Heatherton &

Tice, 1994; Schmidt et al.,

2007). Due to changing work

environments in

organizational settings and

the experiencing of role

stressors, employees are

expected and required to

exert self-control to

regulate emotional reactions,

to adjust goal-directed

behavior, and to motivate

themselves to perform highly

demanding and unattractive

tasks (Diestel & Schmidt,

2012; Vohs & Baumeister,

2010).

Neubach, Schmidt and

Heuer (2007) identified three

dimensions of self-control

demands at work. First,

impulse control refers to the

extent in which individuals

must inhibit spontaneous,

14

impulsive response tendencies

and affect states. This

dimension manifests itself in

bitterness, impatience and

impoliteness. Second, resisting

distractions is the necessity to

resist distractions provoked

by task-irrelevant stimuli,

which interfere with the

successful accomplishment of

work-related activities.

Third, overcoming inner resistance,

relates to overcoming inner

dislikes, motivational

inhibitions or aversions,

required to effectively

complete unattractive tasks

that cannot be avoided.

Although these three

dimensions of self-control

have been shown to be

factorially distinct,

following Diestel and Schmidt

(2012), I will combine them

as one overarching variable,

because these dimensions draw

on one single resource.

In line with the

abovementioned, I propose the

following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: Role Conflict is positively

related to Self-Control Demands.

Hypothesis 5: Role Ambiguity is

positively related to Self-Control

Demands.

Hypothesis 6: Role Overload is

positively related to Self-Control

Demands.

Self-control demands and

resistance to change

As suggested earlier, there

remains a lack of systematic

research in the antecedents

and underlying processes

concerning RTC. I suggested

therefore exploring the

potential influence of role

stressors on RTC, via the

mechanism of self-control

demands. Specifically, in the

current study I propose that

15

coping with the

abovementioned role stressors

involves exerting self-

control, and this consumes

self-control resources, which

ultimately impairs

individuals in subsequent

thoughts, emotion regulations

and behaviors, with regards

to a change. Therefore,

individuals come in a

position where sense making

and accepting of the changes

is inhibited and ultimately

they may react in a possible

resistant manner towards the

change (see Figure 1). This

idea is in line with the

research conducted on self-

control strength (Muraven

&Baumeister, 2000) and self-

control demands (Schmidt,

Neubach & Heuer, 2007).

Experimental research on

SCD`s showed that exercising

self-control can be very

stressful and has the

potential to lead to

impairments of cognitive,

emotional and behavioral

control (Schmidt et al.,

2012). Also, there is a

growing body of evidence that

suggests that high SCD`s can

lead to impaired well-being

and different forms of job

strain. Further, recent

studies showed that these

self-control demands lead to

increases in health

complaints, elevated levels

of burnout, low levels of job

satisfaction, absenteeism,

and depression (Diestel &

Schmidt, 2012). Muraven and

Baumeister (2000) suggested

that these observations can

be explained by ego depletion.

Ego depletion is the state of

diminished self-control

strength. The idea is that

different forms of self-

control, use a common

resource (self-control

strength), which becomes

limited in the process of

16

exerting self-control. As a

consequence, performing acts

of self-control reduces the

self-control strength

available for subsequent

self-control efforts.

Furthermore, role stressors,

in most research used as

proxies for workload, have

been suggested to be causally

related to organizational and

behavioral outcomes, such as

bullying at work, low work

engagement, drug abuse,

counterproductive work

behavior, reduced job

performance and absenteeism

(Diestel & Schmidt, 2009).

In summary, I propose

that RTC can be approached in

a similar vein, suggesting

that role stressors influence

the occurrence of RTC, via

self-control demands. The

implementation of change

often involves the occurrence

of role stressors (Tiong,

2005). Individuals perceive,

especially in the context of

changes in work content, the

three different types of role

stressors. Also, Diestel and

Schmidt (2012) suggested that

stress and high workload go

hand in hand with self-

control. Individuals try to

control themselves not to

react in a negative, deviant,

and emotional way towards the

role stressors. This

ultimately reduces the

available self-control

resources for subsequent

self-control. Finally,

building on the

abovementioned model of self-

control strength (Muraven &

Baumeister, 2000), and the

model of self-control demands

(Schmidt, Neubach & Heuer,

2007) and recent findings in

studies on self-control, I

suggest that self-control

demands determine the adverse

impacts of role stressors on

RTC. Role stressors cause

17

employees to engage in self-

control activities. These

elevation efforts in self-

control have a potential

negative effect on subsequent

thoughts, emotions and

behaviors. I therefore

suggest that RTC can be

explained due to diminished

self-control resources, which

are influenced by coping with

role conflict, role ambiguity

and role overload. I

therefore propose the

following mediating

hypotheses:

Hypothesis 7: Self-control demands

mediate the positive relationship

between role conflict and resistance to

change.

Hypothesis 8: Self-control demands

mediate the positive relationship

between role ambiguity and resistance

to change.

Hypotheses 9: Self-control demands

mediate the positive relationship

between role overload and resistance

to change.

FIGURE 1

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

METHOD

Research Setting

The present study was

conducted in an organization

in the Dutch intermediary

agency industry. This

organization contains 15

brands, all specialized in

18

ROLE STRESSORS SELF-CONTROLDEMANDS

RESISTANCE TOCHANGE

different segments of the

Dutch labor market. The focus

of this study was the

intermediary agency function,

which underwent a change in

the used target systems,

procedures and processes

concerned with the processing

of solicitations of job

applicants. Before the

change, the intermediary

agents were occupied

separately with commercial

activities, such as visiting

firms and positioning job

applicants or non-commercial

activities, such

as calling firms or job

applicants, updating data

bases, calling for references

and administrative tasks.

After the change, rather than

focusing on one specific

aspect, the intermediary

agents were expected to

perform commercial and non-

commercial activities,

resulting in role problems

throughout their daily work.

Sample and procedures

The primary data in this

study were collected via

surveys. Before designing

these surveys, I conducted 16

semi-structured interviews

with business managers,

senior intermediary agents

and junior intermediary

agents (see APPENDIX A for

interview descriptions), in

order to get familiar with

the organization, the

intermediary agency function

and the particular change

context. Further, these

interviews revealed the

antecedents in the study`s

theoretical framework, and

helped me design the context-

specific survey items. The

interviews were conducted two

years after the change was

introduced in the

organization, and although

19

the change was already

commenced two years earlier,

the impact of the change was

still strongly experienced.

The interviewees were eager

to discuss their experiences,

feelings and fears regarding

this change.

After I conducted these

interviews, I designed the

survey with adapted,

validated measures, using

Qualtrics software. I

furthermore used Hinkin’s

article (1995) in the design

and administration of the

survey. The Hinkin principles

are used to establish

validity and to account for

issues in scale development.

The survey website link

was sent to the marketing

director, the informant, for

a final check and he

administered it to the

intermediary agents via the

corporate intranet. The data

from the survey were

collected and analyzed

anonymously. A total of 97

out of 346 employees

participated in the study

(response rate = 28%). The

demographics showed that 57%

of the participants were

female. The mean age was 31.3

years (SD = 5.5), ranging

from 21 to 53 years. Mean

tenure was 4.98 years (SD =

1.85), with a range from 3 to

11 years. Further, 10.3% had

a graduate degree, 75.3% had

an undergraduate degree,

11.3% had a lower degree, and

3.1% chose differently.

Measures

A 7-point Likert-type scale

ranging from 1(strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly

agree) was used for all

scales, such that higher

scores reflected higher

values on the variable. For

each scale I computed the

Cronbach`s alpha (α), as an

20

estimate of the internal

consistency reliability.

Role Stressors. Role

stressors were assessed by

using a combination of

validated measures for role

conflict, role ambiguity and

role overload. Role conflict

and role ambiguity were

measured by using 18 items,

derived from Rizzo et al.

(1970). A sample item for

role conflict was “I work

under incompatible policies

and guidelines”, and for role

ambiguity “I feel certain

about how much authority I

have”. The Cronbach’s α were

respectively .88 and .86.

Role overload was measured by

using five items, derived

from Emmerik (2008). A sample

item was “My job requires me

to work hard”. The Cronbach’s

α was .84.

Self-Control Demands. Self-

control demands were assessed

by using the three subscales

developed by Diestel and

Schmidt (2009). The overall

Cronbach’s α was .83. The

first, six-item subscale,

impulse control, assesses the

extent to which jobs require

participants to suppress and

inhibit spontaneous,

impulsive response

tendencies. A sample item was

“My job requires me never to

lose my temper”. The second,

four-item subscale, resisting

distractions, assesses the

degree to not giving in to

any distractions while

performing work tasks. A

sample item was “In order to

achieve my performance goals,

I must not let myself be

distracted”. The third, five-

item subscale, overcoming inner

resistances, assesses the

extent to which participants

overcome inner aversions in

dealing with unattractive

tasks. A sample item was

21

“Some of my tasks are such

that I really need to force

myself to get them dome”.

Following Diestel and Schmidt

(2012), items were joined

from each of the three

subscales, because they draw

on one single resource.

Hence, I used a composed

measure of SCD`s.

Resistance to Change.

Resistance to change was

assessed by using the RTC

measurement scale developed

by Oreg (2007). The scale

consists of 15 items that

included affective, cognitive

and behavioral reactions to

change. Sample items were “I

had a bad feeling about the

change”, “I believed that the

change would make my job

harder”, and “I complained

about the change to my

colleagues”. The Cronbach’s α

was .93. In line with Van Dam

et al. (2008), all three

dimensions are combined to

provide an inclusive

assessment of resistance.

Control Variables. In

addition, I included a number

of control variables in the

survey and analysis, because

these variables are expected

to be related to self-control

demands and resistance to

change (Diestel & Schmidt,

2012; Peccei et al., 2008).

The controls covered

respondents’ age (in years),

organizational tenure (in

years), gender (1 = female, 2

= male), and level of

education (1 = lower degree,

2= undergraduate degree, 3 =

graduate degree, 4 = other).

Data Analysis

Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 were

tested using hierarchical

linear regressions, in which

role stressors were the

independent variables and

resistance to change the

dependent variable.

22

Hierarchical regression is a

sequential process involving

the entry of predictor

variables into the analysis

in steps. The order of

variable entry into the

analysis is based on theory

and past research.

Hierarchical regression is an

appropriate tool for

analysis, when variance on a

criterion variable is being

explained by predictor

variables that are correlated

with each other, which is

commonly seen in social

sciences research (Pedhazur,

1997). Also, hierarchical

regression is used to analyze

the effect of a predictor

variable after controlling

for other variables. It is

therefore sufficient to use

hierarchical linear

regression to test my

hypotheses.

Mediation analysis

Hypotheses 4 - 9 were tested

using an SPSS macro developed

by Preacher and Hayes (2008).

The SPSS macro was used to

measure the mediating role of

self-control demands in the

relationship between role

stressors and resistance to

change. Traditionally,

mediation is analyzed by

running four series of

regression analyses,

recommended by Baron and

Kenny (1986). However, some

errors have been found in

this stepwise procedure. For

example, MacKinnon, Lockwood

and Williams (2004) suggested

that a statistically

significant outcome in the

first step is not a

requirement before going on

to subsequent steps (Baron &

Kenny initially recommended

that the direct effect from

the independent variable to

the outcome variable must be

significant). Also, Kenny,

23

Kashy, and Bolger (1998)

published an updated account

of Baron and Kenny, and

suggested that step 1 is no

longer essential in

establishing mediation.

Accordingly, it is

recommended that analyses of

mediation should be based on

formal significance tests of

the indirect effect of paths

ab, such as the Sobel (1982)

test. Although Preacher and

Hayes (2008) suggested that

this approach is more

powerful than Baron and Kenny

(1986), the Sobel test rests

on the assumption that the

indirect effect ab is

normally distributed. This

assumption, however, is

indistinct, because the

product ab is known to be

non-normal distributed, even

when the constituting

variables of product ab are

normally distributed (Cole,

Walter & Bruch, 2008).

I have therefore chosen

to conduct a more powerful

procedure, the SPSS macro, to

more directly address

mediation and to calculate

the indirect effects between

role stressors and resistance

to change. This macro uses

the bootstrap method to

calculate the confidence

intervals in which the

indirect effect can be

tested. The bootstrap method

was suggested to be reliable

for small and moderate sample

sizes, and is therefore

appropriate for this current

study (Preacher & Hayes,

2008).

RESULTS

Exploratory Factor Analysis

I first tested if the

measures of role conflict,

role ambiguity, role

overload, self-control

demands and resistance to

24

change can empirically be

distinguished. I conducted a

Principal Components Analysis

with varimax rotation (see

APPENDIX B), which initially

resulted in six factors with

eigenvalues larger than one.

Scree plots indicated that a

five factor solution

described the data best. The

factor analysis shows that

five factors emerged with

eigenvalues greater than 1,

accounting for 61.94 percent

of the variance. Each item

loaded on the appropriate

factor with factor loadings

exceeding .50, and cross-

loadings were lower than

the .40 threshold.

Descriptive Statistics and

Correlations

Table 1 displays the means,

standard deviations, and

correlations of all study

variables. As expected, all

three role stressors

correlated positively with

the outcome variable,

resistance to change, which

is consistent with hypothesis

1-3. Role conflict correlated

positively with resistance to

change (r = .58, p < .01).

The same holds for role

ambiguity (r = .34, p < .05)

and role overload (r = .51, p

< .01). Furthermore, as

expected, all three role

stressors correlated

positively with the mediating

variable of self-control

demands. Role conflict

correlated positively with

self-control demands (r

= .67, p < .01). The same

holds for role ambiguity (r =

.24, p < .05) and role

overload (r = .45, p < .01),

which is consistent with

hypothesis 4-6. Self-control

demands correlated positively

with resistance to change (r

= .54, p < .01). Finally, age

was negatively correlated

25

with resistance to change (r

= -.36, p < .01). Therefore,

age is used as control

variable throughout. Using

Becker`s (2005)

recommendations, I excluded

the control variables gender,

education level and tenure

from further analyses,

because they could

potentially reduce

statistical power and yield

biased estimates.

Test of the Hypothesized

Model

Hierarchical regression

analyses that consisted of

two steps were conducted to

test Hypotheses 1-3. In the

first step, age was entered

as covariate to control for

the relationship with role

conflict, role ambiguity,

role overload, and resistance

to change. In the second

step, I included the role

stressors to test their

hypothesized effects on the

outcome variable. As is shown

in Table 2, role conflict (B

= .32, p <.001), role

ambiguity (B = .25, p < .05)

and role overload (B = .51, p

< .001) were positively

associated with resistance to

change (see step 2 of the

regression equations). The

role stressors with inclusion

of the control variable age,

explained 43% of the variance

in resistance to change

(R2=.43, p < .001). Thus,

Hypotheses 1-3 received

support.

Tests of Mediation

Table 3 presents the results

for Hypotheses 4-9. As is

shown in Table 3, role

conflict (B = .40, p = .00)

and role overload (B= .27, p

= .01) were positively

related to self-control

demands. Thus, Hypotheses 4

and 6 received support. Role

26

ambiguity was also positively

related to self-control

demands, but was not

significant. Hypothesis 5 was

thus not supported.

Furthermore, self-control

demands was hypothesized to

mediate the effects of role

conflict, role ambiguity and

role overload on resistance

to change. As is shown in

Table 3, self-control demands

mediated the effects of role

conflict and role overload on

resistance to change.

Bootstrap results, with a

bootstrapped 90% CI around

the indirect effect did not

contain a zero for role

conflict (.02, .24) and role

overload (.07, .23). Thus,

Hypotheses 7 and 9 received

support. However, the

bootstrap results with a

bootstrapped 90% CI around

the indirect effect did

contain a zero for role

ambiguity (-.02, .08). Thus,

Hypothesis 8 did not receive

support.

TABLE 1

Univariate Statistics and Pearson Correlations among thevariables (n = 97)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1.Age

2.Gender

3.Education Level

4.Tenure

31.26

1.46

2.05

4.9

5.47

.50

.58

1.

-

.10

-.07

.38**

-

-.08

-.08

-

-.24*

-

27

5. Role Conflict6. Role Ambiguity7. Role Overload

8. Self-control Demands

9.Resistance to Change

8

4.713.145.00

4.56

4.04

85

1.29.94.74

.84

.80

-.39**

-.10 -.37**

-.18

-.35**

.17

.16-.06

.13

.06

.14

.22*.18

-.05

.03

-.09-.03-.13

-.08

-.08

-.33**.44**

.67**

.58**

-.05

.24*

.34*

-

.45**

.51**

-

.54**

-

* p < .05, ** p <.01

TABLE 2

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis (n = 97)a

28

a

Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported for the respective

regression steps, including age (step 1), age

and role stressors (step 2)

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

TABLE 3

Results of Mediation Analysis (n = 97)

Mediation Variable Model: Self-control DemandsPredictor B SE t pAge .02 .01 1.82 .07Role Conflict .40 .06 6.74 .00Role Ambiguity

.04 .07 .55 .58

Role Overload .27 .09 2.79 .01R2 .50

Dependent Variable Model: Resistance to ChangePredictor B SE t pAge -.02 .02 -1.19 .24Role Conflict .21 .10 2.00 .05

29

Steps and variables

Direct effect between Role Stressors and Resistanceto Change

1 2 B SE B SE

Age -.08*** .02

-.02 .02

Role ConflictRole AmbiguityRole Overload

.32 *** .09 .25* .10 .51*** .14

∆R2 .12*** .46***Adjusted R2 .11*** .43***

Role Ambiguity

.24 .10 2.38 .02

Role Overload .43 .15 2.96 .00Self-control Demands .28 .15 1.87 .06R2 .48

Indirect effect between Role stressors andResistance to Change through Self-control DemandsIndirect effect Boot SE 90% Confidence

intervala

Role Conflict .11 .07 .02, .24Role Ambiguity .01 .03 -.02, .08Role Overload .08 .07 .07, .23a Based on 1000 bootstrap samples

Discussion

The primary objective for

this study was to understand

to what extent role stressors

influence subsequent employee

reactions towards change.

Using role theory perspective

and self-control theory as

predominant theoretical

lenses, I proposed and tested

the idea that role stressors

influence an employee’s level

of resistance to change,

through the mechanism of

self-control demands. The

results, based on survey data

from an actual work setting

revealed that role conflict,

role ambiguity and role

overload were positively

related to resistance to

change. Furthermore, my data

provided the evidence that

self-control demands mediated

the relationship between role

conflict and resistance to

change and the relationship

between role overload and

resistance to change. My

data, however, did not

provide the evidence that

self-control demands mediated

the positive relationship

between role ambiguity and

30

resistance to change. Thus,

coping with role conflict and

role overload, leads to self-

control demands, and

subsequently results in

cognitive, emotional and

behavioral impairment in

employee reactions, such as

resistance to change.

Theoretical Implications

The abovementioned results

provide new insights for the

change management literature,

where a role theory

perspective was largely

neglected. The

implementations of changes

bring role stressors to the

fore, especially when these

changes are concerned with

the work content. The current

study provides empirical

evidence that employees

perceive role conflict, role

ambiguity and role overload

in a change context, and that

these stressors ultimately

lead to resistant thoughts,

emotions and behaviors

towards the change itself.

Therefore, role stressors

should be seen as important

antecedents of the resistance

to change construct. Also,

these results provide clear

support to long-established

arguments in the change

management literature, that

individuals’ reactions to

change are influenced by

their perceptions of the

actual content and

consequences of the change

itself (Giangreco and Peccei,

2005).

Furthermore, the results

shed new light on the

relationship between role

stressors and self-control

demands. In accordance with

research done by Diestel and

Schmidt (2012), I found a

positive relationship between

workload and self-control

demands. Furthermore,

31

following from the present

study, role conflict can be

added to the list of

antecedents of self-control

demands. Both these findings

are consistent with Robinson,

Schmeichel and Inzlicht

(2010), who suggested that

job-related requirements

(e.g. role conflict and role

overload) encourage employees

to engage in volitional self-

control at work, and deplete

their limited resource of

self-control.

Finally, the results

contribute to the demand for

a systematic search to

antecedents and mediation

processes, concerned with

resistance to change (Oreg,

2003; Piderit, 2000). By

combining role theory with

self-control theory, I

developed an idea, and found

evidence, that role conflict

and role overload have an

indirect effect on resistance

to change, via self-control

demands. This approach is the

first of its kind to address

such a mediational process in

the resistance to change

literature, and opens new

research avenues for this

change phenomenon.

Managerial Implications

The results of this study

have also important

implications for the

management practice. Managers

should be alert to their

employees’ current work

conditions and conditions

after a change, and monitor

for signs of role conflict,

role ambiguity and role

overload. Employees who

perceive these role stressors

may experience ego depletion,

or become unmotivated. Here,

managers should step in and

address these issues, by

shifting job conditions to

32

better fit the employee

(Rubino et al., 2009).

Also, as suggested by

Cascio (2003), we can expect

that progressively more

employees will be exposed to

self-control demands,

especially in the service

sector. Considering the

detrimental effects on

resistance to change, it is

crucial for organizations to

address how to cope

effectively with role

stressors and self-control

demands. Following Diestel

and Schmidt (2012),

organizations should think

about the development of

training programs for

strengthening the individual

self-control resource,

especially for those

employees having low self-

control strength. This way,

organizations can tackle the

difficulties with role

stressors that come to the

fore in a change context.

Finally, organizations

should think about improving

the fit between job demands

and personal characteristics

of employees, by using

recruitment strategies

preventing vulnerable

employees (low on self-

control strength) from

entering into jobs that

demand high self-control.

Limitations

There are also some

limitations of this research

study to consider. First, I

used a cross-sectional

research design, which did

not allow me to determine the

causality direction among the

study variables. This means

that the study results are

vulnerable to bidirectional

and to opposite relationships

because of the possibility

that an employees’ level of

33

resistance to change might

influence the level of self-

control, which in turn also

could influence the

experiencing of role

conflict, role ambiguity and

role overload (Janssen & Van

Yperen, 2004). However,

theory and previous research

suggest that stressors in the

work context should be seen

as potential causes of self-

control, and resistance to

change (e.g. Diestel &

Schmidt, 2012; Eathough et

al., 2011; Tiong, 2005).

Nevertheless, future research

should use experimental or

longitudinal designs to

cross-validate the results of

this study.

Second, all variables

were provided by intermediary

agents, which could give room

for false correlations and

incorrect research results,

due to common-source bias

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee &

Podsakoff, 2003). Although

Podsakoff, MacKenzie and

Podsakoff (2011) suggest

obtaining measures of

predictor and criterion

variables from different

sources: they give a few

exceptional cases where this

is not required or

appropriate. Namely, when the

predictor and criterion

variables are capturing

individual’s perceptions,

beliefs, judgments or

feelings. The current

research model can be grouped

under this exception, and

therefore counters the

difficulties with common

source bias.

Third, there could be

concerns with regards to the

use of self-report measures

of resistance to change, as

well as of the antecedent

variables in the study

analysis. Although the

measures exhibited

34

satisfactory psychometric

properties, the self-report

nature however increases

possible difficulties of

social desirability. However,

using factor analysis and

reassuring the anonymity of

respondents, minimized the

effects of spurious responses

(Podsakoff et al., 2011)

Nevertheless, future studies

should explore the option of

non-self-report measures of

resistance to change, by for

example letting supervisors

rate employees’ behavior,

emotions and thoughts with

regards to change programs

(Oreg, 2007).

Fourth, I obtained

responses from intermediary

agents from a service

organization in the labor

market sector. However,

employees’ perceptions of

role stressors might vary due

to hierarchical level

differences. This means that

generalizing to employees on

higher hierarchical levels

needs further empirical

investigation (Janssen & Van

Yperen, 2004).

Finally, although based

on an actual work context

sample, the study was

restricted to a single

organization, thereby

limiting the generalizability

and robustness of the present

study findings. Hence, future

research should be conducted

in a variety of

organizational contexts to

cross-validate the results of

this study.

Future research

A number of avenues exist for

future research on role

stressors and resistance to

change. Firstly, an

interactionist perspective

(Mischel & Shoda, 1995) could

be fruitful in capturing a

more concise picture of

35

resistance to change in the

organizational reality. It

could be interesting to

investigate the moderating

influence of personality on

the identified relationships

in the present study. This

way we could get more

insights in which employees

are more prone to role

stressors, and resistant

cognitions, emotions and

behaviors. By identifying

these individuals,

organizations could change

their recruitment strategies

and adapt their training

programs.

Secondly, future

research should provide

alternative mechanisms

through which role stressors

lead to resistance to change.

Although this current study

provided evidence that self-

control demands mediated the

effects on RTC for two of the

three role stressors, the

small indirect effects give

playground for investigating

alternative explanations for

the occurrence of resistance

to change from coping with

role stressors. An

interesting mediating

mechanism to investigate is

the level of employees’

motivation. Experiencing role

stress might have detrimental

consequences for the

motivation of the employee,

and subsequently inhibit the

motivational capacity to

accept the change. This

approach is in line with the

research done by Rubino et

al. (2009), who investigated

the influence of role

stressors on intrinsic

motivation, and its influence

on several behavioral

outcomes.

Finally, an interesting

avenue for future research is

the role that leaders could

play in buffering the

36

negative effects of role

stressors on resistance to

change. A good starting point

is the research done by

Zhang, Tsingan and Zhang

(2013), who suggested that

leader-member exchange

quality could play a valuable

role in coping with role

stressors.

Conclusion

Implementing changes in

organizations depends to a

large extent on the

adaptability and flexibility

of employees. Resistant

thoughts, emotions and

behaviors towards a change

are rather rule than the

exception, making it an

interesting research topic.

The current study showed that

role stressors have a

detrimental influence on

resistance to change, via the

mechanism of self-control

demands. By integrating role

theory with self-control

theory, I offered an

alternative explanation for

the occurrence of resistance

to change. Ultimately, this

present study provides

organizations valuable

information when considering

implementing changes.

REFERENCES

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris,

S. G. 2002. Crafting a change

message to create

transformational readiness.

Journal of Organizational Change

Management.15:2, 169-183.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A.

1986. The moderator–mediator

variable distinction in

social psychological

research: Conceptual,

strategic, and statistical

considerations. Journal of

Personality & Social

Psychology.51, 1173-1182.

37

Baumeister, R. F.,

Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D.

M. 1994. Losing control: How and

why people fail at self-regulation.

San Diego: Academic Press.

Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential

problems in the statistical

control of variables in

organizational research: A

qualitative analysis with

recommendations. Organizational

Research Methods. 8, 274-289.

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. 2000.

Cracking the code of change.

Harvard Business Review.78:3,

133-141.

Brown, S.P., Jones, E., &

Leigh, T.W. 2005. The

Attenuating Effect of Role

Overload on Relationships

linking Self-Efficacy and

Goal Level to Work

performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology. 90:5, 972-979.

Burnes, B. 2004. Kurt Lewin

and the Planned Approach to

Change: A Re-appraisal.

Journal of Management Studies.

41:6, 977-1002.

Caldwell, S.D. & Liu, Y.

2011. Further investigating

the influence of personality

in employee response to

organizational change: the

moderating role of change-

related factors. Human

Resource Management Journal.

21:1, 74-89.

Cascio, W. 2003. Changes in

workers, work, and organizations.

In C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen &

R. J. Klimoski (Eds.).

Handbook of psychology: Industrial

and organizational psychology

(12, 401–422). Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley.

Cole, M.S., Walter, F., &

Bruch, H. 2008. Affective

mechanisms linking

38

dysfunctional behavior to

performance in work teams: a

moderated mediation study.

Journal of Applied Psychology.

93:5, 945-958.

Davis, K. & Songer, A. 2009.

Resistance to change in the

AEC Industry: Are the

stereotypes true? Journal of

Construction Engineering and

Management. 35:12, 1324-

1333.

Dent, E.B. & Goldberg

Galloway, S. 1999.Challenging

Resistance to Change. Journal

of Applied Behavioral Science.

35:1, 25-41.

Diestel, S., & Schmidt, K-H.

2009. Mediator and moderator

effects of demands on self-

control in the relationship

between work load and

indicators of job strain.

Work & Stress. 23: 1, 60-79.

Diestel, S., & Schmidt, K-H.

2012. Lagged mediator effects

of self-control demands on

psychological strain and

absenteeism. Journal of

Occupation. 85, 556-578.

Eathough, E.M., Miloslavic,

S., Chang, C-H., & Johnson,

R.E. 2011. Relationships of

Role Stressors with

Organizational Citizenship

Behavior: A Meta-Analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology.

96:3, 619-632.

Emmerik, Y.H. 2008.

Relationships between

personality and time-related

strains. Psychological Reports.

102, 484-494.

Ford, J., Ford, L., &

D’Amelio, A. 2008. Resistance

to change: the rest of the

story. Academy of Management

Review. 33:2, 326-377.

39

Fried, Y., Shirom, A.,

Gilboa, S., & Cooper, C.

2008. The mediating effects

of job satisfaction and

propensity to leave on role

stress–job performance

relationships: Combining

meta-analysis and structural

equation modeling.

International Journal of Stress

Management, 15, 305–328.

Giangreco, A. and Peccei, R.

2005.The nature and

antecedents of middle

managers’ resistance to

change: evidence from an

Italian context. International

Journal of Human

Resources Management. 16:10,

1812-1829.

Gilboa, S., Shirom, A.,

Fried, Y. & Cooper, C. 2008.

A meta-analysis of work

demand stressors and job

performance: examining main

and moderating effects.

Personnel Psychology. 61, 227-

271.

Gilmore, T. N. 1997. Side

effects of corporate cultural

transformations. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science. 33:2,

174 –189.

Glazer, S., & Beehr, T. A.

2005. Consistency of

implications of three role

stressors across four

countries. Journal of

Organizational Behavior. 26,

467–487.

Greenwood, R., & Hinnings, C.

R. 1996. Understanding

radical change: Bringing

together the old and the new

institutionalism. Academy of

Management Review. 21, 1022–

1054.

Hinkin, T. 1995. A review of

Scale Development Practices

in the Study of

40

Organizations. Journal of

Management. 21:5, 967-988.

Janssen, O., & Van Yperen,

N.W. 2004. Employees’ goal

orientations, the quality of

leader-member exchange, and

the outcomes of job

performance and job

satisfaction. Academy of

Management Journal. 47: 3,

368-384.

Jimmieson, N., Terry, D., &

Callan, V. 2004. A

Longitudinal Study of

Employee Adaptation to

Organizational Change: the

role of change-related

information and change-

related self-efficacy. Journal

of Occupational Health

Pshychology. 9:1, 11-27.

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M.,

Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D. &

Rosenthal, R.A. 1964.

Organizational Stress: Studies in

Role Conflict and Ambiguity. John

Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., &

Bolger, N. 1998. Data analysis

in social psychology. In D. T.

Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.

Lindzey (Eds.). The handbook

of social psychology (4th ed., 1,

233-265). New York: McGraw–

Hill

King, N. & Anderson, N. 1995.

Innovation and Change in

Organizations. Routledge,

London.

Kotter, J.P. &Schlesinger,

L.A. 1979.Choosing strategies

for change. Harvard Business

Review. 57:2, 106-14.

Kotter, J.P.1995. Leading

change: why transformation

efforts fail. Harvard Business

Review. 73:2, 59-67.

Lawrence, S., & Callan, V.

2011. The role of social

41

support in coping during the

anticipatory stage of

organizational change: a test

of an integrative model.

British Journal of Management.

22, 567-585.

MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff,

P.M., & Podsakoff, N.P. 2011.

Construct measurement and

validation procedures in MIS

and behavior research:

Integrating new and existing

techniques. MIS Quarterly. 35,

293-334.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood,

C. M., & Williams, J. 2004.

Confidence limits for the

indirect effect: Distribution

of the produce and resampling

methods. Multivariate Behavioral

Research. 39, 99-128.

McGuire, W. J. 1985. Attitudes

and attitude change. In G.

Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),

Handbook of social psychology

(3rd ed., 2, 233 – 346). New

York: Random House.

Michel, J.S., Kotrba, L.M.,

Mitchelson, J.K., Clark,

M.A., & Baltes, B.B. 2011.

Antecedents of work-family

conflict: a meta-analytical

review. Journal of Organizational

Behavior. 32, 689-725.

Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., &

Baumeister, R. F. 1998. Self-

control as limited resource:

Regulatory depletion

patterns. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology. 74, 774–789.

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R.

F. 2000. Self-regulation and

depletion of limited

resources: Does self-control

resemble a muscle?

Psychological Bulletin. 126, 247–

259.

42

Nadler, D.A. 1993.Concept for

the Management of Organizational

Change. In Mahey, C. and

Mayon-White, B. (eds)

Managing Change. London: Paul

Chapman Publishing Ltd

Nord, W. R., & Jermier, J. M.

1994. Overcoming resistance

to resistance: Insights from

a

study of the shadows. Public

Administration Quarterly. 17:4,

396-412.

Oreg, S.2003. Resistance to

change: Developing an

individual differences

measure. Journal of Applied

Psychology. 88:4, 587-604.

Oreg, S.2007. Personality,

context, and resistance to

organizational change.

European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology. 15:1,

73-101.

Örtqvist, D., & Wincent, J.

2006. Prominent consequences

of role stress: A meta-

analytic review. International

Journal of Stress Management, 13,

399–422.

Quinn, R. E.2004. Building

the Bridge as You Walk On It:

A Guide for Leading Change.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Peccei, R., Giangreco, A., &

Sebastiano, A. 2011. The role

of organizational commitment

in the analysis of resistance

to change: Co-predictor and

moderator effects. Personnel

Review. 4:2, 185-204.

Pedhazur, E. J. 1997. Multiple

regression in behavioural research

(3rd ed.).  Orlando,  FL : 

Harcourt Brace.

Pettigrew, A. M. 1973. The

politics of organizational decision-

making. London: Tavistock.

43

Piderit, S. K. 2000.

Rethinking resistance and

recognizing ambivalence: A

multidimensional

view of attitudes toward an

organizational change.

Academy of Management Review.

25:4,783-794.

Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F.

2008. Asympotic and

resampling strategies for

assessing and comparing

indirect effects in multiple

mediator models. Behavior

Research Methods. 40:3, 879-

891.

Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., &

Lirtzman, S.I. 1970. Role

Conflict and Ambiguity in

Complex Organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly.

150-163.

Robinson, J. L., Schmeichel,

B. J., & Inzlicht, M. 2010. A

cognitive control perspective

of self-control strength and

its depletion. Social and

Personality Psychology Compass.

4, 189-200.

Rubino, C., Luksyte, A.,

Perry, S.J., & Volpone, S.D.

2009. How do stressors lead

to Burnoout? The mediating

role of motivation. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology.

14:3, 289-304.

Schmidt, K-H., Neubach, B., &

Heuer, H. 2007. Self-control

demands, cognitive control

deficits, and burnout. Work &

Stress. 21: 2, 142-154.

Self, D., Armenakis, A., &

Schaeder, M. 2007.

Organizational Change

Content, Process, and

Context: A Simultaneous

Analysis of Employee

Reactions. Journal of Change

Management. 7:2, 211-229.

44

Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic

intervals for indirect effects in

structural equations models. In S.

Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological

methodology. 290-312. San

Francisco: Jossey–Bass.

Szabla, D.B. 2007. A

Multidimensional View of

Resistance to Organizational

Change: Exploring Cognitive,

Emotional, and Intentional

Responses to Planned Change

across Perceived Change

Leadership Strategies. Human

Resource Development Quarterly.

18:4, 525-558.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie,

S. B., Lee, J.-Y., &

Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common

method biases in behavioral

research: A critical review

of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal

of Applied Psychology. 88, 879–

903.

Tiong, T.N. 2005. Maximising

Human Resource Potential in

the midst of organizational

change. Singapore Management

Review. 27:2, 25-35.

Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., &

Schyns, B. 2008. Daily work

contexts and resistance to

organizational change: the

role of leader-member

exchange, development

climate, and change process

characteristics. Applied

Psychology: an international

review. 57:2, 313-334.

Vohs, K. D.,&Baumeister, R.

F. 2010. Handbook of self-

regulation. NewYork, NY:

Guilford Press.

Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. S.

1998. Resistance: A

constructive tool for change

management. Management

Decision.36:8, 543–548.

45

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J.

T. 2000. Predictors and

outcomes of openness to

changes in a re-oganizing

workplace. Journal of Applied

Psychology. 85:1, 132-142.

Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E.,

& Austin, J.T. 2000. Cynicism

about Organizational Change:

Measurement, Antecedents, and

Correlates. Group &

Organization Management. 25,

132-153.

Zhang, R-P., Tsingan, L., &

Zhang, L-P. 2013. Role

stressors and Job Attitudes:

A mediated model of Leader-

Member Exchange. Journal of

Social Psychology. 153:5, 560-

576.

46

APPENDIX A

Informant and Interview/Survey description

Phase Job Title Interview Summary

Phase 1: introduction

meeting/interview

1- Business

Consultant

1- Account manager

1- Marketing

Director

Interview length:

ranging from 60 – 90

minutes/ Transcription:

12 pages

Phase 2:unstructured

interviews in

Friesland, Groningen,

Drenthe

- Brand A

Phase 3: semi-

structured interviews

in Utrecht, Zuid-

Holland and Noord-

Holland

- Brand A

- Brand B

Brand A:

4-

Intermediary agents

1- Account manager

Brand A:

1- Junior

intermediary

agent

3- Senior

intermediary

agents

Brand B:

1- Junior

intermediary

agent3- Senior

Interview length:

ranging from 30 – 60

minutes / Transcription:

27 pages

Interview length:

ranging from 35 – 68

minutes/ Transcription:

43 pages

47

intermediary

agents

Phase 4: survey 97 employees (response

rate: 28%)

Survey instrument

APPENDIX B

Results of EFA of Role Overload, Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity,Self-Control Demands, and Resistance to Change a

FactorsItems 1 2 3 4 5

Role OverloadMy job requires me to work fast.My job requires me to work hard.My job does not ask too much work given the amountof time. b

I have enough time to finish my work .b

My work is a madhouse given the amount of time.

.77

.84-.53-.59.74

48

Role ConflictI had to do things that should be done differently.I worked under incompatible policies and guidelines.I had to buck a rule or policy in order to carry outan assignment.I received incompatible requests from two or morepeople.I did things that were apt to be accepted by oneperson and not accepted by others.I worked on unnecessary things.

.56

.66

.70

.55

.52

.71

Role Ambiguityb

I felt certain about how much authority I had.I had clear, planned goals and objectives for myjob.I knew that I divided my time properly.I knew what my responsibilities were.I knew exactly what was expected of me.I knew exactly what should be done to do the job.

.70

.79

.61

.79

.78

.77

Self-Control DemandsMy job requires me never to lose my temper.Even if I sometimes feel very irritated, I am notallowed to show that by any means.At work, I am under no circumstances allowed togive way to any spontaneous reactions.I am never allowed to lose my self-control at work.I am never allowed to become impatient at work.If I want to get my work done successfully, I mustnot give in to any distractions.In order to cope with my workload, I must forcemyself not to waste my time on unimportant things.My work requires me to resist distractions.Some of my tasks are such that I really need toforce myself to get them done.Starting off with certain tasks sometimes costs me aconsiderable amount of will power.In terms of some of my tasks, I really need torestrain myself from leaving them undone in favor ofmore attractive tasks.Dealing with unattractive tasks requires me a highamount of willpower.Some of my tasks I can only get done against innerobstacles.

.70

.72

.57

.71

.63

.83

.56

.65

.70

.82

.81

.84

.85

Resistance to ChangeI was afraid of the change.I had a bad feeling about the change.I was quite excited about the change. b

The change made me upset.

.56.85-.

49

I was stressed by the change.I looked for ways to prevent the change from takingplace.I protested against the change.I complained about the change to my colleagues.I presented my objections regarding the change tomanagement.I spoke rather highly of the change to others. b

I believed that the change would harm the waythings are done in the organization.I thought that it’s a negative thing that we weregoing through this change.I believed that the change would make my jobharder.I believed that the change would benefit theorganization. b

I believed that I could personally benefit from thechange. b

70.61

.64-.50.66.74.61-.70

.78.79.58-.60-.66

EigenValue 16 4.43 3.37 2.23 1.83

Explained Variance (%) 35.57

9.84 7.48 4.95 4.10

a Items are quoted from the surveyb Reversed

50