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: [email protected]
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
Top Related