Role Conflict as Mediator Between Transformational Leadership and Change-Related Outcomes

Introduction

Globalization and technological evolution have been pushing the working world to change constantly over the last decades (Cascio, 1995; Hechanova & Cementina-Olpoc, 2013; Howard, 1995). Since organizations are human systems, the success of a change process depends upon the people who are charged with the implementation of a change (Hechanova & Cementina-Olpoc, 2013). The employees’ commitment to change turned out to be a determinant of the support for a change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). With a lack of commitment to change the whole project runs the risk to fail (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Hill, Seo, Kang, & Taylor, 2012). Hence, it is one challenge to get the employees committed to a particular change. As employees are more committed to the change, they may tend to show a stronger embracement for potentially new or adapted work roles.

Drawing on organizational role theory (Gross, Mason, & McEachern, 1958; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), it is suggested that role conflict (Biddle, 1986) is a by-effect of change processes (Baillien & De Witte, 2009). As role conflict is a cause of role stress (Biddle, 1986), the employees will perceive tension and strain (Bedeian & Armenakis, 1981). This, in turn, leads to work-related irritation of the employees (Fossum, 1989; Spector, 1997). There is ample empirical evidence that the consequences of a change are associated with higher levels of stress, and consequentially lower job satisfaction and higher turnover rates (Bedeian & Armenakis, 1981; Rush, Schoel, & Barnard, 1995). Thus, reducing stress in change processes is another important challenge of leading organizational changes.

Eisenbach, Watson, and Pillai (1999) matched the change and leadership literature. Particularly, they analyzed the transformational leadership literature that engages in the competencies needed to enact change successfully. Their special issue generally advocates the role of transformational leaders as an agent of change (Eisenbach et al., 1999). Surprisingly, to the best of knowledge, no empirical studies have provided an in-depth analysis of transformational leadership as a predictor of the above-mentioned attitudinal and health-related outcomes in the context of change processes.

The present research examines the impact of transformational leadership on followers’ commitment to change, especially affective commitment to change, and irritation. Here, especially a role theory perspective is valuable since roles are often directly affected by organizational changes. Therefore, role conflict was examined as a mediating variable of the relationship mentioned above. In doing so, the present study offers insights about its inner workings in change processes from the perspective of organizational role theory. Such a more differentiated understanding of the direct and indirect effects, allows us to provide practical implications for the support of organizational change processes in favor of sustainable competitive advantage of organizations in dynamic and rapidly changing environments (Teece, 2009). The papers research design was theoretically developed by using the aforementioned models. Each relationship in the path model is substantiated with theory. The theoretical reasoning is presented together with empirical underpinnings.

The sample from a German company undergoing a pervasive change showed that role conflict mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and commitment to change as well as irritation.