Organizational change from a leader’s perspective: change characteristics as antecedents to leaders’ role clarity and laissez-faire leadership behaviors

Implementing organizational change has become an increasingly common responsibility for leaders (Rafferty and Restubog, 2017). However, it may also be one of the most challenging and underappreciated tasks leaders face, particularly when the conditions necessary for constructive leader-employee relationships are lacking (Oreg and Berson, 2019). At the same time, it remains a crucial responsibility, as leaders’ supportive actions are essential for achieving intended outcomes (Oreg and Berson, 2019) and safeguarding employee wellbeing throughout the process (Saksvik et al., 2007). In contrast to facilitating change, research shows that when leaders act ineffectively, they may hinder implementation efforts and, consequently, reduce the likelihood of successful organizational change (Neves and Schyns, 2018).

Despite leaders’ central role in organizational change processes, relatively little is known about why some leaders respond more effectively than others in these contexts (Oreg and Berson, 2019). In this paper, we emphasize the importance of organizational change characteristics as antecedents to leaders’ role clarity — defined as the availability of role-relevant information, including responsibilities and expectations (Lyons, 1971) — and laissez-faire leadership, a form of ineffective leadership behavior. Laissez-faire leadership is characterized by leaders’ withdrawal from their role designated responsibilities, including behaviors such as being absent when needed, failing to provide vital information, and avoiding or delaying important decisions (Skogstad et al., 2007). Such withdrawal can be understood as a way of escaping tension (Arnold et al., 2015; Kahn et al., 1964).

Organizational change characteristics refer to specific elements of the change process that can either support or hinder both individual and organizational outcomes (Rafferty and Jimmieson, 2010). This study focuses on change frequency and involvement in change planning, two characteristics that previous research has suggested may affect outcomes in opposite directions (Rafferty and Griffin, 2006). Drawing on Organizational Role Theory (ORT; Biddle, 1986), we propose that frequent organizational change may impair leaders’ role clarity, as such changes often involve transformations of work roles (Bernuzzi et al., 2023), which reduces consistent access to role-relevant information.

Conversely, we suggest that leaders’ involvement in change planning may enhance their role clarity. Being involved in planning processes can directly contribute to role clarification (often a desired outcome of organizational change; Bernuzzi et al., 2023) or function as a beneficial byproduct of involvement. Leaders who are actively involved in planning gain greater access to role-relevant information and have more control over both the content and process of change, which supports clarity.

We further propose that leaders’ role clarity is linked to their laissez-faire leadership. Specifically, the level of perceived role clarity influences leaders’ ability to understand what is expected of them and, consequently, what actions they should take — including actions critical for implementing organizational change. Thus, the overall aim of this paper is to examine how leaders’ perceptions of two distinct organizational change characteristics — change frequency and involvement in change planning — influence their role clarity and, indirectly, their laissez-faire leadership. An overview of the theoretical model, including the hypothesized paths, is presented in Figure 1.

In researching these relations, we contribute to the literature in three main ways. First, role clarity has been shown to be a critical factor for leaders’ performance (Hall, 2008), suggesting that low role clarity increases the likelihood of ineffective (i.e. laissez-faire) leadership behaviors. However, research specifically examining the relationship between role clarity and laissez-faire leadership from the leader’s perspective remains scarce — both in general (Kaluza et al., 2020) and particularly in the context of organizational change (Lundmark et al., 2022). At the same time, both role clarity and laissez-faire leadership have been identified as important for organizational change outcomes (Bernuzzi et al., 2023; Neves and Schyns, 2018). Therefore, gaining deeper insight into their antecedents and interrelationships can provide a clearer understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to either successful or failed change processes.

Second, research on how change characteristics influence outcomes has, to the best of our knowledge, primarily focused on employees’ perspectives (e.g. Rafferty and Griffin, 2006). By shifting the focus to leaders’ experiences, we expand the understanding of who is affected by these change characteristics. Leaders are often viewed as central agents in organizational change initiatives (Nielsen, 2017), and given the importance of leadership support during change implementation, understanding how these characteristics affect leaders themselves is essential for capturing the full complexity of the change process.

Third, from a trickle-down perspective, understanding what supports effective leadership during organizational change can also have indirect benefits for employees and the organization as a whole. Previous research demonstrates that leaders’ attitudes and behaviors influence employees’ attitudes toward change (Oreg and Berson, 2019; Walk, 2023) and employee well-being (Guidetti et al., 2018). Expanding knowledge on the key conditions necessary for effective leadership can help organizations create environments that foster desirable leadership behaviors, thereby indirectly increasing the likelihood of successful change implementation (Lundmark et al., 2022).

Change frequency refers to the perception of how often organizational change occurs within a given organizational context (Rafferty and Jimmieson, 2010). Managing multiple or successive changes often presents challenges related to coping with the time, energy, and complexity required to implement these changes (Smollan et al., 2010). For instance, organizational changes often modify job roles and introduce additional activities beyond one’s designated tasks, particularly in relation to change implementation.

ORT suggests that when tasks accumulate to a level where they are perceived as increasingly difficult to fulfill, roles may become quantitatively overloaded and unclear (Biddle, 1986). Role clarity is reduced when individuals experience unclear information about their job expectations, responsibilities, and performance standards (Rizzo et al., 1970). A high frequency of organizational change may therefore negatively affect role clarity, as new procedures, changing roles, and evolving personnel structures exceed individuals’ adaptive capacities (Verlinden et al., 2022). Consequently, perceiving a high frequency of change has been shown to increase uncertainty, lower job satisfaction, increase turnover intentions, and impair well-being among change participants (Rafferty and Jimmieson, 2010).

Although leaders are often in a more privileged position than employees in terms of receiving information and exerting control over change implementation (Nielsen, 2017), the uncertainty and strain caused by a high frequency of change may still reduce leaders’ role clarity. This is particularly true when leaders’ own roles are subject to change, for example through evolving areas of responsibility or changes in the teams they lead (Verlinden et al., 2022). Based on this reasoning, we hypothesize:

When change participants are involved in the planning phase of an organizational change initiative, their performance and wellbeing may be enhanced rather than diminished (Rafferty and Griffin, 2006). Involvement in planning can facilitate the development of role clarity by clarifying objectives and expectations (Kahn et al., 1964). In line with ORT (Biddle, 1986), gaining information and competence through involvement helps individuals understand how to perform their designated tasks.

Previous research has demonstrated that involvement in change planning promotes adaptivity and work engagement (Petrou et al., 2015). Although this has been studied primarily among employees, it may be particularly important for leaders. Leaders are often responsible for driving organizational change, which includes leading implementation efforts, answering employees’ questions, and monitoring progress (Nielsen, 2017). To fulfill these responsibilities, leaders must have a clear understanding of the change plan and their own role within it. Based on this, we hypothesize:

Role clarity is a critical resource during organizational change, as such changes often alter work roles — either by modifying existing roles or expanding them (Bernuzzi et al., 2023). Securing smooth role transitions is vital for resilience and, ultimately, for successful change implementation (Saksvik et al., 2007). However, low role clarity can easily lead to stress, impaired well-being, and reduced performance over time (Barling and Frone, 2017; Bray and Brawley, 2002).

From an ORT perspective, Kahn et al. (1964) proposed that behavioral withdrawal may be a way of coping with the tension caused by low role clarity. This aligns with findings in leadership research, where laissez-faire leadership — characterized by withdrawal from designated leadership responsibilities — has been identified as a strategy to cope with fatigue (Arnold et al., 2015). Research on leadership in high-change contexts has also shown that unclear leadership roles may contribute to a more passive leadership style (Fors Brandebo, 2020). Based on this, we hypothesize:

When leaders are exposed to frequent organizational change, they are more likely to experience role overload and, as a result, psychological fatigue (Barling and Frone, 2017). Adapting to the introduced changes — including changes affecting their own role — may become difficult, resulting in unclear or inconsistent role boundaries. To cope with the strain caused by this role ambiguity (i.e. the opposite of role clarity), leaders may withdraw from their leadership responsibilities. Further, leaders experiencing fatigue from being exposed to role ambiguity may also withdraw from employees, avoiding situations where they are expected to provide information or answer questions. Thus, we propose that role clarity mediates the relationship between change frequency and laissez-faire leadership. Accordingly, we hypothesize:

In contrast, involvement in change planning can help leaders perceive upcoming changes as more manageable. Participating in the planning process provides opportunities to prepare, gain a deeper understanding of the change, and influence how their own (new) role fits into the future organizational structure (Bernuzzi et al., 2023). When new work tasks and processes are clearly defined, leaders can allocate their existing resources more efficiently (Lyons, 1971). Furthermore, involvement may allow them to acquire additional personal resources that strengthen role clarity, such as relevant competencies. As a result, leaders may be less inclined to withdraw and more likely to adopt an active leadership approach. Based on this, we hypothesize:

In April 2019 (T1, baseline), a random sample of 5,000 leaders at different organizational levels were invited to participate in a survey. The survey was distributed by Statistics Sweden, the national agency for official statistics, which also manages the national occupational registers that include all Swedish employees. A total of 1,331 leaders responded, corresponding to a response rate of 27%. In October 2019 (T2, six-month follow-up), a follow-up survey was sent to the leaders who had responded at T1. In total, 767 leaders completed the T2 survey, resulting in a follow-up response rate of 58%. Given the lack of previous studies offering guidance, the six-month time lag was selected based on the expectation that it would allow sufficient time for organizational change characteristics to influence role clarity and laissez-faire leadership.

At T1, the mean age of the responding leaders was 46.7 years. Of these leaders, 48% were women, and the average tenure was 6.5 years. At T2, the mean age was 48.9 years, 48% were women, and the average tenure was 7.2 years. There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender, or tenure between respondents at T1 and T2, after accounting for the six-month time gap. Consequently, there was no evidence of systematic attrition. Additional information about the sample characteristics at T1 and T2 is provided in Table S1 in the Supplementary Material.

All scales used in this study were adapted from previously validated instruments. Since the participants were Swedish managers, previously validated Swedish translations were used. The only exception was the scales measuring organizational change characteristics, which had not been previously translated into Swedish. These scales were therefore translated following recommended guidelines (Gudmundsson, 2009). Scale reliabilities (Omega) are presented along the diagonal in Table 1.

Leaders’ perception of frequency of organizational change, as well as of their involvement in change planning were measured using the three-item sub-scales of the organizational change characteristics measure developed by Rafferty and Griffin (2006). A sample item from the frequency of change scale is: “It feels like change is always happening in this organization”. A sample item from the involvement in planning scale is: “Change at my workplace has involved prior preparation and planning”. Responses were provided on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Leaders’ perceptions of role clarity were measured using the three-item short version of the role clarity scale from the COPSOQ-II questionnaire (Pejtersen et al., 2010).

A sample item is: “Does your work have clear objectives”. Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (to a very low degree) to 5 (to a very high degree).

Leaders’ self-rated laissez-faire leadership was measured using the four-item laissez-faire leadership scale from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X-short (Bass and Avolio, 1995). A sample item is: “I avoid getting involved when important issues arise.” Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (often, if not always).

Difficulties in emotional regulation, age (in years), and gender (1 = male, 2 = female) were included as control variables for all independent and dependent variables in the hypothesized model. Difficulties in emotional regulation were measured using the five-item subscale difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior from the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (Gratz and Roemer, 2004). A sample item is: “When I am upset, I have difficulty getting work done.” Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). These control variables were included because previous studies have demonstrated their associations with leadership behaviors (Arnold et al., 2015; Barbuto et al., 2007), perceptions of organizational change characteristics (Rafferty and Griffin, 2006), and perceived role clarity (Chung et al., 2021). Including these variables allowed us to test whether the hypothesized relationships explained variance in outcomes above and beyond these individual leader characteristics.

The hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus version 8.6 (Muthén and Muthén, 2023). We used the robust full information maximum likelihood estimator (MLR) to account for missing data and potential non-normality (Little, 2024). An exception was made for bootstrapping procedures used to calculate confidence intervals (CIs) for indirect effects, where MLR is not available. In these cases, we used the maximum likelihood (ML) estimator instead. A significance level of p < 0.05 was applied to all analyses. The analysis proceeded in three sequential steps:

First, we estimated a measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Kline, 2015). Model fit was assessed by assessing the root mean square error of approximation; RMSEA; the comparative fit index, CFI; the Tucker-Lewis index, TLI; and the standardized root mean residual, SRMR. Following standard criteria, SRMR and RMSEA < 0.08, and CFI and TLI > 0.90; to indicate an acceptable fit (Kline, 2015).

Second, based on the measurement model we estimated a structural model. Laissez-faire leadership at T2 was regressed on role clarity at T2. Role clarity at T2 was regressed on both change frequency at T1 and involvement in change planning at T1. Direct paths were also specified from change frequency and involvement in change planning at T1 to laissez-faire leadership at T2. All control variables (emotional regulation difficulties, age, gender) were specified as predictors of all latent variables and were allowed to covary. Change frequency and involvement at T1 were also allowed to covary. Following recommendations from Becker et al. (2016), we compared a model including control variables with a model excluding them. Following their guidelines, if the standardized coefficients for the independent variables differed by less than 0.1, the impact of the control variables was deemed negligible and could therefore be excluded from the analyses.

Third, we tested indirect effects from the two change characteristics at T1 (i.e. change frequency and involvement in change planning) to laissez-faire leadership at T2, mediated by role clarity at T2. These indirect effects were tested using 5,000 bootstrap samples (Rucker et al., 2011). Indirect effects were considered statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval excluded zero.

Following recommendations from the causal mediation literature, we also conducted sensitivity analyses to check for potential exposure-by-mediator interactions (XM interactions). Specifically, we tested models that included a latent interaction between each independent variable (i.e. change frequency or involvement in change planning) and the mediator (i.e. role clarity), predicting the dependent variable (i.e. laissez-faire leadership). These models were estimated using the latent moderated structural equations (LMS) approach (Gonzalez and Valente, 2023) with maximum likelihood estimation and bootstrapped confidence intervals.

Finally, we conducted an additional sensitivity analysis using the correlated-residuals method (Imai et al., 2010). This method assumes that any unmeasured confounder affecting the mediator-outcome relationship would create a correlation between the residuals of the mediator and the outcome variable. If no such unmeasured confounder exists, this correlation should be zero — the default assumption in traditional mediation analysis. Because LMS and correlated-residual analyses cannot be combined in Mplus, the latter was conducted using factor scores derived from the measurement model.

Descriptive statistics for all variables, bivariate correlations, and omega (ω) scale reliability estimates are presented in Table 1. Generally, correlations were statistically significant and in the expected directions. The only exception was the near-zero correlation between organizational change frequency at T1 and laissez-faire leadership at T2. Omega reliability estimates for the scales ranged from 0.73 to 0.91.

The measurement model (CFA) demonstrated an acceptable fit: χ²(125) = 396.210, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.053 [90% CI: 0.047, 0.059], CFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.925, SRMR = 0.050. Similarly, the SEM model including control variables showed acceptable fit:

χ²(125) = 442.367, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.050 [90% CI: 0.045, 0.055], CFI = 0.937, TLI = 0.922, SRMR = 0.048. Comparing the SEM model with and without control variables, standardized coefficients in the model without controls differed by more than 0.1 in all cases, consistently being higher. Therefore, the model without control variables was discarded.

In the SEM model (see Figure 2), leaders’ perceptions of organizational change frequency at T1 were negatively associated with role clarity at T2 (β = −0.15, p = 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Consistent with Hypothesis 2 involvement in change planning at T1 was positively associated with role clarity at T2 (β = 0.43, p < 0.001). Furthermore, in line with Hypothesis 3, role clarity at T2 was negatively associated with laissez-faire leadership at T2 (β = −0.30, p < 0.001).

Tests for indirect effects supported both Hypothesis 4 and Hypothesis 5 (see Table 2). Specifically, change frequency at T1 had a positive indirect effect on laissez-faire leadership at T2, mediated by role clarity at T2. Involvement in change planning T1 had a negative indirect effect on laissez-faire leadership at T2, mediated by role clarity at T2.

The SEM model indicated that some control variables were significantly related to other model variables. Difficulties in emotional regulation was negatively related to role clarity (β = −0.19, p < 0.001) and positively related to laissez-faire leadership (β = 0.20, p < 0.001). Gender and age were both significantly related to organizational change frequency (β = 0.22, p < 0.001; β = −0.11, p = 0.006, respectively). Age was positively related to role clarity (β = 0.15, p < 0.001). Age and gender were negatively related (β = −0.10, p = 0.007). Age was also negatively related to difficulties in emotional regulation (β = −0.23, p < 0.001).

The XM interaction was not statistically significant for either of the two predictor variables (i.e. frequency of change [b_xm = 0.048, p = 0.315], or involvement in change planning [b_xm = 0.053, p = 0.255]) and the inclusion of the XM interaction did not impact the magnitude of the mediated effects (see Table 2). Thus, the mediated effects did not seem to change across levels of the independent variables. The correlated-residuals analyses, however, indicated that the mediated effects were not very robust to potential unmeasured confounding. The mediated effects were less affected by positive residual correlations, which had an impact on the magnitude but not the sign. However, unmeasured confounding causing a negative residual correlation of approximately −0.20 or larger would cause the lower/upper limit of the confidence interval to cross zero (see Figures S1 and S2 in the Supplemental Material).

Our results show that change frequency and involvement in change planning, two key organizational change characteristics, are linked to leaders’ role clarity. Both characteristics are also indirectly related to laissez-faire leadership behaviors, mediated by role clarity. These findings align with recent research suggesting that role clarity is a vital resource during organizational change initiatives (Bernuzzi et al., 2023; Lundmark et al., 2022). Furthermore, our results indicate that, for leaders, role clarity may function as an important mechanism through which these change characteristics influence leadership behaviors (in this case, laissez-faire leadership).

From the perspective of Organizational Role Theory (ORT) (Biddle, 1986), these findings can be understood in terms of quantitative role overload stemming from frequent organizational change. This overload is reflected in the negative association between change frequency and role clarity. Conversely, leaders who are more involved in change planning experience higher role clarity, indicating that involvement in planning reduces qualitative role overload. Being actively involved gives leaders the opportunity to clarify their own roles, thus enhancing their sense of agency and control — either by ensuring they are well-informed or by actively shaping their future role.

In turn, role clarity functions as a critical resource, particularly during organizational change processes, which often involve adjustments to roles and responsibilities (Lundmark et al., 2022). When leaders are unable to maintain role clarity, they may experience increased uncertainty (Fors Brandebo, 2020), which in turn heightens the risk of withdrawal (Kahn et al., 1964). To avoid this tension, leaders may disengage from their leadership responsibilities — effectively adopting laissez-faire behaviors — rather than actively participating in change implementation. In contrast, leaders who are involved in change planning accumulate resources rather than draining them, thereby reducing the likelihood of role strain and behavioral withdrawal.

Laissez-faire leadership behaviors are known to have detrimental effects on both employees and organizational outcomes (Skogstad et al., 2007). However, relatively little research has investigated the factors driving laissez-faire leadership in the context of organizational change (Lundmark et al., 2022; Nielsen, 2017). Our findings highlight the importance of adopting a leader perspective when seeking to promote successful change processes.

Based on these findings, organizations should actively ensure that leaders are given influence over the design and content of organizational changes, thereby reducing the risk of laissez-faire leadership. For example, including leaders in the early stages of change planning provides them with clearer information and a sense of ownership, reducing ambiguity and the likelihood of withdrawal. While employee participation is known to promote positive outcomes (Rafferty and Griffin, 2006), our results suggest that leader participation is equally critical.

Additionally, organizations should carefully consider the timing and pacing of organizational changes. Implementing multiple changes within a short period is clearly exhausting and increases the risk of role uncertainty. When leaders lack a clear understanding of what is expected of them, they are more likely to withdraw rather than actively lead the change process (Fors Brandebo, 2020). This can further contribute to change fatigue, decreasing the likelihood of successful future change initiatives (Rafferty and Restubog, 2017). Rather than rushing from one change to the next, organizations should build in time for recovery and resource replenishment between change initiatives. Thus, timing and pacing should be viewed as strategic resources when managing change from a leader perspective.

Finally, role clarity during organizational change can also be supported through direct organizational support (Bernuzzi et al., 2023). We recommend that organizations provide leaders with ongoing feedback and guidance, particularly when they are navigating role transitions and adjustments. Establishing regular follow-up meetings between leaders at different organizational levels can help identify and address sources of role ambiguity. Tailoring the level of challenge to the leaders’ capacity can also mitigate the risk of overload (DeRue and Wellman, 2009).

While this study contributes to understanding factors associated with role clarity and ineffective leadership behaviors during organizational change, several limitations create opportunities for future research. First, our use of cross-sectional data at T2 (measuring both role clarity and laissez-faire leadership) presents a methodological limitation (Maxwell et al., 2011). Although our model identifies associations between variables, the design limits our ability to draw firm conclusions about causality and the temporal sequence of these relationships. For instance, low role clarity may itself trigger organizational change, which could make future change more likely. Similarly, laissez-faire leadership could gradually reduce role clarity over time, as disengaged leaders fail to clarify responsibilities both for themselves and for their employees.

Although we were unable to test for reverse causality using the available data, our hypothesized model was grounded in theory (Biddle, 1986) and prior research (Rafferty and Griffin, 2006). Furthermore, sensitivity analyses, including XM interactions, suggested that the mediated relationships were stable across different levels of the independent variables, offering some support for our proposed model. Nevertheless, future studies would benefit from employing longitudinal or experimental designs to strengthen causal inference.

Second, our study focused on two organizational change characteristics and one role stressor (role clarity, as the inverse of role ambiguity). We prioritized role clarity due to its documented importance during change processes (Bernuzzi et al., 2023). However, future research could explore additional organizational change characteristics and role stressors (e.g. role conflict and role overload) to provide a more comprehensive picture. Similarly, examining other leader resources (e.g. social support) and coping strategies would help clarify how leaders mitigate stressors and maintain role clarity.

The correlated residuals analyses also suggest the possible presence of unmeasured confounders, further emphasizing the importance of including additional explanatory variables in future research. Moreover, our study did not examine actual change outcomes or employee-level consequences, limiting our ability to link leader behaviors to organizational performance. Thus, caution is warranted when interpreting our findings, given the potential for omitted variable bias.

Finally, we echo calls for greater attention to organizational context in leadership and change research (Johns, 2023). The type and scope of change, as well as organizational culture, likely shape the importance of different leader resources and stressors. Our six-month time lag may capture short-term disruptions to role clarity, but longer-term studies could investigate whether role clarity recovers after leaders adapt to change. Future research should also explore how contextual factors (e.g. industry type, organizational size, or hierarchical level) influence these processes.

This study adopts a leader perspective on how organizational change characteristics influence leaders’ role clarity and laissez-faire leadership. We found that frequent organizational change was negatively related to role clarity and, indirectly, positively related to laissez-faire leadership. Conversely, leaders’ involvement in change planning was positively related to role clarity and, indirectly, negatively related to laissez-faire leadership. To reduce the risk of ineffective leadership during organizational change, we recommend that organizations actively involve leaders in planning processes, allow time for recovery between change initiatives, and provide support to leaders during their own role transitions.

Funding: This work was funded by FORTE – Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare [2019-00066]. The data collection was funded by AFA Försäkring [180262].

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.