Search

Examines the dysfunctional consequences associated with role conflict and ambiguity. Impact of role stress on job performance and satisfaction; Investigation on the determinants of role stress; Supervisory behavior focused in the study.

Role theory has been suggested as the conceptual framework in which to relate or join the properties of the organization and the individual. Two major concepts from role theory are role conflict and ambiguity. Role conflict and ambiguity, measured with scales developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) have been used in most of the recent studies on role perceptions. Although the scales are frequently related to attitudinal and behavioral variables, they have remained relatively unexamined. This paper is an examination of the psychometric properties of the role conflict and ambiguity scales, including the factor structure, coefficients of congruency, internal reliabilities, test-retest reliabilities, absolute levels of conflict and ambiguity, and correlations with additional attitudinal and behavioral variables. The analysis is conducted across six samples. The results suggest that continued use of role conflict and role ambiguity scales appears to be warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the premise that organizational behaviors are phenomena of complex, interacting variables, this research analyzed the task-structure technology interaction as a predictor of perceived role ambiguity and conflict. The basic hypothesis was that incongruent matches of task-structure-technology are associated with higher levels of role ambiguity and conflict than congruent matches of these variables. The results supported the hypothesis that congruent matches of the three variables result in lower role ambiguity and conflict than incongruent matches of those variables; however, some incongruent matches result in more role ambiguity and conflict than others. These results suggest that the work done on role ambiguity and conflict consider the influence of the organization's structure and technology as well as the incumbent's task. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the basis of a review of research testing Korman's self-consistency theory, chronic self-esteem and situational self-esteem appear to be important determinants of performance, choice, and satisfaction. Further, the findings of some studies support Korman's predictions that high self-esteem persons will perform more effectively and show higher correlations between task liking and success, between reward expectancy and performance, between need fulfillment and satisfaction, and between self-implementation and occupational choice. However, one cannot conclude on the basis of this research that ‘man is self-consistent and not self-enhancing,’ since self-enhancement theory is a viable alternative explanation for most of the findings. A major source of ambiguity is that researchers have not tested the crucial self-consistency prediction that low self-esteem persons would seek consistency even at the cost of a dissatisfying occupation, failure, and other negative consequences. Several methodological and conceptual improvements are suggested for future applications of self-consistency theory to work motivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Role ambiguity and role conflict were hypothesized to be negatively related to employee satisfaction and performance. Previous research, however, had revealed that these two types of role perceptions were not always negatively related to satisfaction and performance. Furthermore, when the predicted negative relationships were found, the magnitudes of the relationships varied widely. In this study employee ability was hypothesized to reduce the negative relationships between role perceptions and satisfaction and performance. In addition, the effect of ability was hypothesized to be moderated by organization level. The results generally failed to support the hypothesized relationships. There were, however, two significant interactions that partially supported one hypothesis. Employees with high ability were less affected by role ambiguity than employees with low ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]