Abstract
Middle managers operate at the intersection of competing strategic and operational levels, yet little is known about the cognitive foundations that influence how they interpret and enact these responsibilities. While prior research has examined cognitive style, role conflict, strategic role enactment, and attention as separate constructs, their integration within a comprehensive cognitive-behavioural framework remains underexplored. Drawing on Organisational Role Theory and Attention-Based View, this study examines how cognitive style (analytic versus holistic) influences middle managers’ experience of role conflict, strategic role enactment, and attentional performance. Across two studies that combine survey and experimental methods, we identify three pathways. First, a holistic cognitive style predicts higher role conflict, which, in turn, is associated with greater enactment of the Championing and Facilitating roles, situating role conflict as a cognitive-behavioural bridge. Second, cognitive style directly shapes attentional outcomes, with analytic managers responding faster in complex tasks but comparable efficiency to holistic style managers. Role conflict plays only a limited mediating role in attentional performance. Third, repeated enactment of strategic roles corresponds to distinct attentional outcomes: Synthesising role is linked to greater efficiency in complexity, and Implementing and Facilitating are associated with reduced flexibility. These findings reconceptualise role conflict as a bridge linking cognition patterns to behaviour and refine the foundation of attention in organisations by demonstrating how cognitive orientation and role enactment shape managerial attention.
Keywords: cognitive style, role conflict, strategic role, attention, middle manager