Role interference and role conflict: meaning and application

An organisation introduces a new system, an extra role or a better process that almost everyone calls valuable, yet few sign up. The explanation often lies in what the offer displaces: it clashes with core work and other roles. This article explains where role interference and role conflict come from, how to tell them apart and how to research them.

Role interference and role conflict describe the extent to which an additional role, task or obligation clashes with a person's core tasks or other roles.

Role conflict concerns expectations that cannot be met at the same time. In role interference, one role hampers another because both claim the same time, energy or attention. They come from organisational role theory and work-family conflict research. They help explain why people reject something they value: they also weigh what it costs them elsewhere.

Role conflict and role ambiguity became central in organisational psychology with the study Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek and Rosenthal (1964). In this article, a role means the set of expectations attached to a person's position or task.

Rizzo, House and Lirtzman (1970) developed a questionnaire for both concepts, which emerged as separate factors among managers. A meta-analysis by Jackson and Schuler (1985) analysed 29 correlates. About 85 per cent of studies used the Rizzo et al. scales, and most were cross-sectional, without clear causal interpretation.

The scales attracted criticism. Tracy and Johnson (1981) already asked what the scales actually measure. King and King (1990) pointed to content validity problems and insufficient evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Bowling et al. (2017) therefore developed new scales and tested them in five studies.

A second line is work-family conflict. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) described work-family conflict in three forms: time devoted to one role, strain from one role and behaviour required by one role make it hard to meet the other role's requirements. Frone, Russell and Cooper (1992) distinguished direction: work interfering with family and family interfering with work. The term role interference builds on this language of interference.

Neurofactor uses role interference and role conflict as an umbrella working concept for the clash between an additional role, task or obligation and someone's core tasks or other roles. Applying it to, say, adopting a new product or process translates this research; it is not a direct finding.

Role ambiguity is covered briefly; unclear role boundaries (role blurring) get a separate article. Enrichment is included because an extra role can also bring benefits: according to Greenhaus and Powell (2006), experiences in one role can improve the other.

The three forms described by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) also help, beyond work and family, to pinpoint where an additional task clashes.

• Time. Hours spent on a new role are no longer available for core tasks.
• Strain and energy. Fatigue or worries from one role spill over into the other, even when the time can be found.
• Behaviour. The new role requires a different way of working or communicating, and switching takes effort.

As an editorial addition, we include attention: answering constant questions about a new system during core work causes interference even when the hours stay limited.

Direction matters: a new task can hamper core work, and core work can hamper the new task. A meta-analysis by Amstad et al. (2011) found that both directions of work-family conflict were related to outcomes in work, family and general well-being. Measure both directions separately.

Many additional roles are formally voluntary, such as onboarding colleagues or being the contact person for a new system. Research on organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB), voluntary behaviour beyond the formal job that helps the organisation, long focused mainly on its positive sides.

Bergeron (2007) proposed in a theoretical model that time spent on such behaviour may come at the expense of the core task, which reward systems usually focus on. Bolino and Turnley (2005) found in a sample of 98 couples that more individual initiative, as rated by the partner, was associated with more role overload, job stress and work-family conflict. Bolino, Hsiung, Harvey and LePine (2015) introduced the concept of citizenship fatigue: feeling worn out or on edge as a result of extra-role behaviour. Among 273 employees, the link between extra-role behaviour and this fatigue depended on perceived organisational support, team relationship quality and pressure to do more. Fatigue was related to less extra-role behaviour later.

So even keen volunteers may later stop, and this relates to context, not only motivation.

Anyone assessing a new task, role, product or process weighs its value against what it displaces. A task can seem useful yet unfeasible. Rejection may then stem precisely from commitment to the core work.

For research, this means asking not only whether people value the offer, but also what would have to give way. Distinguish who sets the expectations: a manager, colleagues, customers or the person. And look for associations summing up the clash, such as ‘extra work’ or ‘away from my actual job’. It can act as a deal-breaking association: one meaning overriding an otherwise positive judgement. Experienced interference can also be a target group's main pain point or amplify another pain point.

1. Describe the core tasks and the new role. Record the core work and what the additional task requires: when, how often and how long.
2. Determine the form. Is the clash about time, energy, behaviour, attention or conflicting expectations? Each form calls for a different solution.
3. Measure both directions. Ask whether the new role hampers core work and whether core work hampers the new role.
4. Combine measures. Use validated self-report scales, such as those by Bowling et al. (2017), alongside interviews, time logging or an association task about the new role.
5. Compare groups and situations. For example, people who do and do not take on the role. See also how to investigate the cause of a pain point.
6. Draw conclusions at group level. Group results describe patterns, not a diagnosis of individual employees or customers.

The points below are editorial advice based on this research, not a tested protocol.

• Show what gives way. Besides a new role's value, state which tasks are dropped or shifted.
• Match the design to the form. Time interference calls for scheduled hours; conflicting expectations for clear prioritisation between managers; ambiguity for a clear task description.
• Pay attention to support and pressure. Perceived support and pressure were related to citizenship fatigue. That is correlational, but reason enough to design for support and voluntariness.
• Test communication. Compare versions of an invitation, for example with and without an explanation of time use.

This example is fictitious. A healthcare organisation is introducing a new electronic health record. Nurses can take on an extra superuser role: contact person for colleagues and link with the project team.

Choice question. Why do few nurses sign up, while many call the new record an improvement?

Available information. Few sign-ups and scattered remarks such as ‘I don't have time for that’.

Suitable approach. The team first describes what the role requires and when. Interviews and an association task follow with nurses who did and did not sign up. A short questionnaire measures role conflict and role overload. The team distinguishes whether the role mainly hampers bedside care or whether colleagues and the project team expect different things simultaneously.

Possible interpretation. If the associations mainly concern ‘away from the patient’, this points to interference in time and attention. If they concern ‘unclear what it involves’, role ambiguity is likelier. No results are known for this example.

Next step. Depending on the pattern: scheduled hours, a priority agreement for busy periods or a sharper role description, followed by a new measurement.

• Interpreting rejection as resistance or lack of interest. Someone who rejects an extra task may be protecting the core work.
• Claiming causality. Most research is cross-sectional and uses questionnaires (Jackson & Schuler, 1985). An association between extra roles and stress does not prove that the role causes the stress.
• Using older scales without caveats. The 1970 scales' validity is disputed; choose an instrument deliberately and report it.
• Seeing only the costs. An extra role can also enrich. Measure both.
• Reasoning from group to individual. Group-level results are not an individual diagnosis or assessment.

Role interference and role conflict explain why a valuable task, role or innovation can still meet resistance: people weigh its value against what must give way. Research becomes useful when you distinguish the form of the clash, measure both directions and include enrichment. The evidence is largely correlational, and group results say nothing about one person.