- Email: [email protected]
Role conflict and ambiguity: A scale analysis
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIORAND HUMANPERFORMANCE20, 111 --128 (1977)
Role Conflict and Ambiguity: A Scale Analysis RANDALL S. SCHULER
The Pennsylvania State University RAMON J. ALDAG
University of Wisconsin-Madison AND ARTHUR P . BRIEF
The University of lowa Role theo~2¢ 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 reliabifities, 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.
Role theory has been proposed as a framework in which to examine the behavior of individuals in organizations (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Lichtman & Hunt, 1971; Homans, 1950). Although definitions of "role" are numerous, it is defined here as "the set of prescriptions defining what the behavior of a position member should be" (Biddle & Thomas, 1966, p. 29). Katz and Kahn (1%6) suggest that role concepts are "the major means for linking the individual and organizational levels of research and theory; it is at once the building block of social systems and the summation of the requirements with which such systems confront their members as individuals" (p. 197). Roles serve as the boundary between the individual and the organization. Roles represent the expectations of the individual and the organization. Roles can thus serve to tie the individual to the organization and the
The authors wish to express their appreciation for the encouragement of this article by R. J. House and for critical comments on an earlier version of this manuscript made by R. J. House and two anonymous reviewers. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Randall S. Schuler, 1775 College Road, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210. 111 Copyright© 1977by AcademicPress, Inc. All rightsof reproductionin any formreserved.
ISSN 0030-5073
112
SCHULER, ALDAG, AND BRIEF
organization to the individual. Although roles can be functional for the individual and the organization, they can also be extremely dysfunctional (Gross, Mason, & McEachern, 1958; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Kahn et al. (1964) elaborated upon the dysfunctions of roles using the concepts of role conflict and role ambiguity. Kahn et al. (1964) and Gross et al. (1958) reported that the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict and ambiguity were tension, turnover, dissatisfactions, anxiety, and lower performance. Role conflict was defined as a condition of incompatible sent roles to the focal person, and role ambiguity was defined as the existence of a lack of clarity in the sent roles. Both role conflict and ambiguity have been defined as having objective and subjective or perceived components. Kahn et al. (1964) proposed that both objective and perceived role conflict and ambiguity would be influenced by organizational characteristics such as organizational position and personal characteristics such as perceptual bias. In order to systematically examine the role concepts of ambiguity and conflict and their relationships with organizational and personal variables, Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) constructed, from a factor analysis of 29 items, two scales called role conflict and role ambiguity. Role conflict had eight items and role ambiguity had six items. Some construct validity for these scales was also reported by Rizzo et aI. (1970). With the adoption of these scales by other researchers, some measurement uniformity in the role conflict and ambiguity research has been achieved since 1970. Not all studies, however, used the scales from the original factor analysis of Rizzo et al. 1 The following studies researching role conflict and ambiguity have used the Rizzo et al. (1970) scales: House and Rizzo, 1972a; Schuler, 1975; Brief and Aldag, 1976; Schuler, 1977a, b; Keller, 1975; Szilagyi, Sims, and Keller, 1976; Hamner and Tosi, 1974; Miles, 1975, 1976; Tosi and Tosi, 1970; Tosi, 1971; Organ and Greene, 1974a, b. Although the role conflict and ambiguity scales as derived by Rizzo et al. (1970) have been utilized extensively, their psychometric properties have gone unexamined except for the analysis done in the original Rizzo et al. (1970) study and the Szilagyi et al. (1976) study. Johnson and Stinson (1975) factor analyzed the original list of items described by Rizzo et al. (1970) but also added four from Kahn et al. (1964). It is, therefore, the purpose of this paper to examine the properties of the 14-item scale containing the role conflict and ambiguity items. Specifically, this study will examine the factor structure of these 14 items across six samples, their coefficients of congruency, internal reliabilities, intercorrelations, test1 For example, Tosi and Tosi (1970) and Tosi (1974) selected 10 items from the twentynine in the original Rizzo e t al. (1970) list for each role scale. Organ and Greene (1974b) selected eleven items for role ambiguity from the Rizzo et al. (1970) list of items.
ROLE CONFLICT
113
retest reliabi.lities, correlations with attitudinal and behavioral variables, and the levels of role conflict and ambiguity across several diverse samples. Some correlates of the role conflict and ambiguity scales are available for less than all the samples examined, but the factor analyses, congruency coefficients, internal refiabilities, and levels of conflict and ambiguity are available for all the samples. METHOD
Samples Data were collected from 1573 employees in six samples in four different organizations. Sample one, Midwestern Nursing, consists of 374 nursing personnel from a Midwestern hospital. All levels of personnel from nursing aides to head nurses are represented. Sample two, Manufacturing, consists of 362 employees of a Midwestern manufacturing firm. Sample three, Public Utility I, is composed of 399 employees of a Midwestern company involved in the communication industry. Sample four, Public Utility II, consists of 272 employees of the same firm as those in sample three. Members of sample four were surveyed seven months after those in sample three. There are 224 members of sample three with the same job and supervisor who are also in sample four. Sample five, Southern Hospital Workers, is composed of 99 food service and janitorial workers of a large Southern university hospital. Finally, sample six, Southern Nursing Aides, consists of 70 nursing aides and assistants drawn from the same hospital as were members of sample five. Measures Satsifaction with work itself, pay, co-workers, supervision, promotional opportunities were measured by the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Its psychometric properties are evaluated by Robinson, Athanasiou, and Head (1969). Job involvement (JI), a measure of the degree to which the employee is heavily involved in and dedicated to his work, was assessed by use of an early version of the Job Diagnostic Survey (The Yale Job Inventory) (Hackman & Lawler, 1971). In samples two, three, and four, JI was measured by nine items taken by Rub, White, and Wood (1975) from Lodahl and Kejner (1965). Anxiety-stress, a measure of somatic tension, job-induced anxiety, and general fatigue and uneasiness, was gauged by an 18-item instrument which is a slightly revised version of that developed by House and Rizzo (1972a). Items were summed to yield a single anxiety-stress score. A nine-item tension scale measuring the frequency of feeling bothered by work-related factors was taken from Lyons (1971). The nine items in the index were selected by Lyons from a longer list used by Kahn et al. (1964). Propensity to leave was measured by a three-item instrument de-
114
SCHULER, ALDAG, AND BRIEF
veloped by Lyons (1971). Search behavior was assessed by a six-item scale developed by Brief and Aldag (Note 1). To measure termination in sample six, the current status of surveyed employees was checked six months after the time of data collection. The host organization provided information concerning which respondents were no longer employed but did not indicate whether termination was voluntary or involuntary. Role conflict (RC) and role ambiguity (RA) were measured by eight items and six items, respectively, taken from Rizzo et al. 's (1970) factor analysis. The first six items shown in Table 2 measured role ambiguity and the last eight items measured role conflict. Role conflict is conceptualized as the degree of incongruity of expectations associated with a role. Role ambiguity is conceptualized as the lack of clarity of role expectations and the degree of uncertainty regarding the outcomes of one's role performance. The e x p e c t a n c y items for samples two, three, and four were categorized into effort-performance relations (Expectancy 1) and performance-reward relations (Expectancy 2). These items were originally developed by House and Dessler (1974), but adapted for use in samples three and four. Expectancy theory measures for sample six were taken from Lawler and Suttle (1973) and also measured Expectancy 1 and Expectancy 2. Measures of four perceived job characteristics and two interpersonal dimensions for samples four, five, and six were taken from the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). The job dimension perceptions gauged were skill variety, task identity, autonomy, and feedback from the job itself. The interpersonal dimensions considered were feedback from agents and dealing with others. Psychometric properties of the JDS are examined by Dunham, Aldag, and Brief (1977). Performance was measured by a variety of methods, each tailored to suit the particular sample. In sample one, the supervisors rated their employees on a seven-point measure of the quality of performance. In sample two, employee performance was determined from peer and supervisory rankings. The peers and supervisors were asked to rank, in quartiles (1-4, with 1 the best), their fellow employees or subordinates in terms of their overall job performance. Performance rankings were analyzed for 177 employees from 27 supervisors and 193 fellow employees (peers). Employees without peer and supervisor rankings were omitted from the performance analysis. Such an overall job performance measure has been found to yield results similar to a more extensive checklist or rating form (Lawler, 1967). The correlation between the sum of the items used in the supervisory and peer rankings (r = .58) suggested a common performance dimension; therefore, the rankings were averaged. The employee performance criterion in samples three and four was a
ROLE CONFLICT
115
measure used by the organization in its performance evaluation system, both for pay purposes and for promotion purposes. All employees are compared against each other at each salary level in the organization. This is accomplished when the supervisor of an employee at a given salary level meets with the supervisors of all other employees at the same level to evaluate jointly each subordinate represented. These sessions are under the direction of the supervisors' immediate superiors, who also can provide input to the process. The subordinates are primarily judged on the degree to which each has met his job objectives for the previous year. In cases of similar accomplishment, the evaluators then use the criterion "contribution to the business." The evaluations are forced by the company into a distribution with approximately 15% "outstanding" (assigned as "1"), and less than 1% "incompetent" (assigned a "4"). In sample three, the mean was 1.94 and the standard deviation was .64. The actual sample distribution for each value was 95 for " 1 , " 240 for "2," 55 for "3," and 9 for " 4 . " In sample four, the mean was 1.95 and the standard deviation was .54. There were no "4s," but there was 46 " l s , " 193 "2s," and 33 "3s." In sample five, performance data were obtained from supervisors and employees. The employees completed serf-ratings on their quality and quantity of performance on a 7-point scale. The mean and standard deviation for quality self-ratings were 5.54 and 1.55, respectively. The supervisors completed two five-item scales on quality and quantity of performance rating from outstanding to falling below requirements. The mean and standard deviation of the supervisory quality rating were 3.58 and 0.72, respectively, while for the supervisory rating those figures were 3.61 and 0.69, respectively. These are the performance ratings used by the host organization for this group of employees. The performance data in sample six were also gathered from the employee and the supervisor. Employees provided a rating of their perceived quality of job performance on a 7-point scale. The mean and standard deviation for this scale were 5.94 and 1.10, respectively. Also, performance ratings were provided by the hospital. Those ratings consisted of a checklist of strengths and weaknesses, which were filled out by the immediate supervisor of the employee. The percentage of checked items that were strengths was used as an aggregate performance index. The mean and standard deviation for this measure were 0.84 and 0.09, respectively. This is the performance rating used by the host organization for this group of employees. For both samples five and six, the self- and supervisor repor~:s of quality and quantity were essentially unrelated. In sample five the correlation between self- and supervisor ratings on quality and quantity were .08 and .12, respectively, both nonsignificant. The correlation between self- and supervisor rating of quality in sample six
116
SCHULER, ALDAG, AND BRIEF
was .38. Although the correlation in sample six was significant, the ratings were not combined because of the relatively low common variance the ratings shared. The internal reliabilities, where applicable, for the scales are in Table 1. Analysis For each sample, zero-order correlations between role indices and all other variables were computed. Also, an inter-item correlation matrix was calculated for the six role ambiguity and eight role conflict items included in the Rizzo et al. (1970) scale. Principal Components Factor Analyses were conducted on the correlation matrices using multiple correlations for communality estimates (see Thurstone, 1947). Two factor varimax rotations were obtained for each sample, and factor congruency values (Harman, 1971) were calculated. In addition, internal reliability estimates (Nunnally, 1967) were computed for each role scale. Test-retest reliabilities were computed for role conflict and ambiguity with the matched respondents in samples three and four. RESULTS Varimax rotated factor loadings, eigenvalues, and explained variance are shown in Table 2. It should be noted that in none of the six samples did more than two eigenvalues exceed unity. However, in samples one, five, and six, only one eigenvalue exceeded unity. Using the criterion that only TABLE 1 INTERNAL REL1ABILITIES b
Measure Job involvement Anxiety-stress Job related tension Propensity to leave Search behavior Expectancy 1 Expectancy 2 Skill variety Task identity Autonomy Feedback from job Feedback from agents Dealing with others
Midwest Nursing Manufacturing
Public Utility
Public Utility
1
2
Southern Southern Hospital Nursing Workers Aides
.68 a
.87 a
.89 a
.83 a
.80 .82
a .70
a a
a a
a a
a a
a .81
.77 .78
a
a
a
a
.84
.76
a a .91 .63 .69 .62 .76 .50
.79 .84 a a a a a a
.62 .79 a a a a a a
.84 .94 .89 .96 .80 .73 .80 .88
a a .20 .31 .35 .47 .56 .40
c .85 .47 .47 .55 .30 .67 .63
a Relevant data not collected for this sample. Cronbach alpha internal reliabilities. c Single item scale.
ROLE CONVLmT
117
a number of factors equal to the number of eigenvalues greater than unity should be retained, rotation of two factors for those samples would not be justified. However, since the absolute value of eigenvalues should not be used as the sole determinant of the most appropriate number of factors to retain, since the second eigenvalue for each sample exceeded .9, and since the researchers desired to assess stability of the two-factor solution across samples, two factors were rotated for each sample. In their scale development,, Rizzo et al. (1970) selected those items loading above .3 on only a single factor. Applying that criterion, the number of noncomplex loading items for each sample shown in Table 2 is, respectively, t3, 13, 14, 11, 10, and 13. The item, "I work on unnecessary things," loads noncomplex in o~aly two samples. Using a more conservative criterion of .4, the number of noncomplex items for each sample is 13, 12, 13, 10, 10 and 10, respectively. Factor congruencies are presented in Table 3. For both role conflict and role ambiguity, all factor congruencies between samples exceed .8. Median congruencies for role conflict and role ambiguity are .92 and .91, respectively. For role conflict and role ambiguity, 14 of 15 and 10 of 15 congruencies, respectively, meet or exceed Harman's (1971) criterion of .9 for acceptable stability. The off-diagonal congruencies offer further support for treating role conflict and ambiguity as separate factors. For each sample, means, standard deviations, internal consistency reliabilities, and intercorrelations of the role conflict and role ambiguity indices are presented in Table 4. All internal consistency reliabilities exceed Nunnally's (1967) criterion of .5 to .6 for instruments in early stages of development, with those in all but o n e sample exceeding .7. The RA and RC scales were positively correlated (r = .34). It should be noted that samples 5 and 6 were each drawn from employees at the lowest level of the organization with limited education and extremely well-defined jobs. Those characteristics are the probable causes of both the very low reported role ambiguity in samples 5 and 6 and the relatively low internal consistency reliabilities of scales for those samples. The data in Table 5 are the correlations between role perceptions and employee attitudes and behavior. These attitudes and behaviors have frequently been used as criteria variables in the studies on role perceptions cited earlier. The correlations between role perceptions and the facets of satisfaction were uniformly significantly negative across the samples except for sample six, Southern Nursing Aides, where most of the correlations were not significant. The coefficient of concordance (Siegel, 1956) was used to assess the similarities across samples in the relative magnitude of the correlations between role conflict and ambiguity and each of the facets of satisfaction. For example, a coefficient of concordance of 1 indicates that the correla-
RA
1, I have clear, planned goals and objectives for m y -.41 job. -.52 2. I know that I have divided nay time properly -.70 3. I know what m y responsibilities are. -.71 4. I k n o w exactly what is expected of me. 5. I feel certain about h o w m u c h authority I h a v e --.58 on the job. -.56 6. Explanation is clear of what h a s to be done. 7. I have to do things that should be done differently .27 u n d e r different conditions. 8. I receive an assignment without the m a n p o w e r .20 to complete it.
Item °
2
-.58 -.65 -.83 -.83 -.72 -.69 -.17 .08
-.18 -.29 ,37 .44
RA
-.22 -.21 -.04 -.15
RC
.63
.38
-.08 -.20
-.03 -.10 -.08 -.13
RC
Midwestern Nursing Manufacturing
1
.00
--.08
-.69 -.68
-.61 -.40 -.79 -.83
RA
.57
.34
-.15 -.23
-.01 -.00 -.04 -.13
RC
Public Utility
3
TABLE 2 VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS
.03
.28
-.62 --.56
-.65 -.37 -.71 -.72
RA
.53
.58
-,24 -.25
-,26 -.02 -.30 -.20
RC
Public Utility
4
.01
.34
-.59 -.40
-.40 -.41 -.51 -.57
RA
.40
.29
--.09 -.23
.13 .18 .02 -.05
RC
5 Southern Hospital Workers
.15
.06
-.50 -.58
-.27 -.63 -.56 -.69
RA
.32
.71
-.04 -.38
-.06 .02 .12 -.09
RC
6 Southern Nursing Aides
Z
~7
.67 .56 .51 .41
.18 .10 .29 .35 15.4 -9.2
.40
.01
17.9 3.7
.50
.29
25.5 4.5
.20 .46
.18
.20
.04
.17
21.0 2.05
.64 .45
.69
.72
.60
.61
21.5 3.7
.29 .25
.22
.10
-.01
.12
17.8 1.8
.58 .42
.56
.67
.50
.67
17.4 2.7
.25 .35
-.08
.22
.07
.19
14.5 1.8
.67 .31
.07
,61
.33
.64
13.2 2.0
-.02 .35
.38
-.01
-.04
.19
8.4 .99
.48 .41
.24
.45
.32
.25
First six items were ordered to represent Role Ambiguity and the last eight items were ordered to represent Role Conflict.
Percentage variance explained Eigenvalues
9. I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment. 10. I work with two or more groups w h o operate quite differently. 11. I receive incompatible requests from two or more people. 12. I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not by others. 13. I receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials to execute it. 14. I work on unnecessary things.
18.9 4.1
-.08 .08
.29
-.11
.03
.18
16.9 .95
.41 .62
.57
.73
.35
.34
H
O Z
~"
120
SCHULER~ ALDAG~ AND BRIEF TABLE 3 FACTOR CONGRUENCIES 1 RC
1. Midwestern Nursing 2. Manufacturing 3. Public Utility I 4. Public Utility II
RC RA RC RA RC RA RC RA
5. Southern Hospital RC Workers RA 6. Southern Nursing RC Aides RA
2
3
4
5
6
RA
RC
RA
RC
RA
RC
RA
RC
RA
RC
--
.97 .49 --
.48 ,95
.97 .46 .99 .38 --
.49 .95 .36 .98
.50 .45 .94 ,30 .90 .28 --
.38 .97 .27 .88 .27 .95
.88 .52 .92 .40 .94 .40 .86 .11
.39 .93 .25 .90 .23 .90 .42 .90
.89 .66 ,52 .92 .93 .48 .38 .91 .91 .48 .40 .90 .83 .39 .34 .82
--
.91 .32
--
--
--
--
--
RA
.50 .91
tion between role ambiguity and satisfaction with work (or any other facet of satisfaction) was consistently the largest in all six samples, the correlation between role ambiguity and satisfaction with supervisor (or any other facet of satisfaction) was the second largest in all six samples and so on. A high coefficient of concordance across six different samples can suggest high construct validity. The coefficient of concordance for the relationships between role conflict and ambiguity and the five facets of satisfaction was highly significant (W = .61; X 2 = 32.94;p < .001). The correlation between the role perceptions and performance were generally mixed. In samples three and four, role ambiguity was negatively related to overall performance. In sample six, self-rating of quality was negatively related to role conflict and supervisor rating of quality was negatively related to role ambiguity. The results of these correlations are consistent with the pattern of results found across other studies (Tosi & Tosi, 1970; House & Rizzo, 1972a; Schuler, 1975). Consistent with House and Rizzo (1972b) and Tosi (1971), the correlations between anxietystress, tension and propensity to leave were positively related to role conflict and ambiguity in samples five and six. Table 6 shows the correlations between the role perceptions and expectancy measures and the task and interpersonal characteristics. Consistent with Brief and Aldag (1976), the correlations between role conflict and ambiguity and the task characteristics were negative. The stability of these relationships across four samples was supported by the coefficient of concordance (W = .52; X 2 = 22.88; p < .001).
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
374 362 399 272 99 70 I99 91
3.26 3.79 4.07 3.99 3.57 3.14 4.19 3.86
Mean" 1.05 1.21 .81 .94 1.23 1.19 1.21 1.27
SD .753 .715 .775 .820 .557 .719 ,816 .820
Internal consistency reliability 2.60 3.36 3.22 3.50 1.41 1.23 3.79 4.03
Mean .96 1.26 1.03 1.02 1.18 1.04 1.08 1.15
SD .783 .808 .834 .873 .634 .707 .780 .808
Internal consistency reliability
Role ambiguity
Means and standard deviations for average item scores computed on the basis of 7-point scales. * p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .001, two-tailed.
Midwestern Nursing Manufacturing Public Utility I Public Utility II Southern Hospital Workers Southern Nursing Aides Rizzo et al., Sample A Rizzo et al., Sample B
Sample
Sample size
Role conflict
TABLE 4 SAMPLE CHARACTERiS-IiCS OF ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY
.50** .35** .34** .49** .21" .18 .25* .01
Correlation of ambiguity to conflict
H
o Z
O
quality quantity rating, quality rating, quantity
5
-.18"** -.10 -.20*** -.32*** -.12" -.24*** a a a a a a a a .07 a
-.18"** a a a a a a a a .04 a
RA
-.21"* .14"* -.38*** -.38*** -.17"**
RC
1 Midwestern Nursing
-.1'2" a a a a a -.05 a a a a
.36*** -.19"* .22** -.33** .35***
RC
-.39*** a a a a a -.02 a a a a
-.47*** -.19"* -.31"** -.39*** -.38***
RA
Manufacturing
2
.18" a a a a a -.0~ a a a a
-.20"** -.25*** -.27*** .31"** -.28***
RC b
-.35*** a a a a a -.19"** a a a a
-.4i*** -.t3"* -.20*** -.43*** -.27***
RA
3 Public U t i l i t y I RA
- . 2 8*rT~* a a a a a -.03 a a a a
-.41%** a a a a a -.12" a a a a
-.35*** -.40*** - . 3 ~ * * .34*** - . 2 9 * * * -.40*** -.45*** -.31"** -.33***
RC
4 Public U t i l i t y II
R e l e v a n t data not collected for this sample. b( - - 1 Indicates significant difference b e t w e e n c o r r e l a t i o n s , p < .05. c Coefficient of concordance (gO for the five facets o f satisfaction across six s a m p l e s = .61; X 2 - 32.94; d f = 9, p < .001. * p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed. *** p < .001, two-tailed.
Job i n v o l v e m e n t Anxiety-stress Job related tension Propensity to l e a v e Search b e h a v i o r Termination Performance Performance self-rating, Performance self-rating, Performance s u p e r v i s o r Performance s u p e r v i s o r
Satisfaction with ~ Work Pay Coworkers Supervision Promotions
Response
TABLE CORRELATIONS OF ROLE INDICES TO EMPLOYEE RESPONSES
-.18" .17 a .17 ,31"** a a .12 .16 .09 -.08
-.26** -.20* -.37*** .43*** -.16
RC
-.2Tr~--71 a a - . 0 ~ * a a
a .~'0" .30** .25* .11 .21" a
-.09 .06 .05 -.16 -.15
RA
.03 -.03 .00
.4~~ .48*** .23* .18 .0'4 a
-.29"* -.06 -.10 -.29"* .04
RC
.18
-.12 .12 a .15 .15 a a
.39*** -.30** -.27** -.49*** -.29**
RA
5 6 Southern Hospital Southern Nursing Workers Aides
> Z
>
bo
--.04 -.0'~--~0 .02 -.28*** -.07 -.15"* -.19"** -.19"**
--.28"** .... .04 -.25*** -.12" -.12" -.28*** -.28***
--.1~9"** .14*w~-~ - . £ 1 " * * a a a a a a a a a a a a
3
.17"** -.1~** a a a a a a -.16"* -.30*** .63 - . 2 8r * * * --.24*** r --.23*** --.3~ .08
-.18"* -.36*** -.1~** -.39*** --.47*** 1 --.43*** --.53"** .06
Public Utility
4
a a .14 -.12 .34*** .32*** --.28*** --.05
a a -.01 -.09 --.31"** --.31"** --.35*** --.17"
5 Southern Hospital Workers
- . 2 ~ -.11 --.08 -.28* --.31"* --.10 - - . 3 ~ *G? --.03
1 -.20* -.15 -.21" --.20* --.27* --.1'i .11
6 Southern Nursing Aides
~' C o e f f i c i e n t o f C o n c o r d a n c e (W) for t h e m e a s u r e s of E x p e c t a n c y 1 a n d E x p e c t a n c y 2 a c r o s s f i v e s a m p l e s = .84; X 2 = 16.80; s = 105; p < .05. a C o e f f i c i e n t o f C o n c o r d a n c e (W) for t h e six t a s k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a c r o s s f o u r s a m p l e s = .52; X 2 = 22.88; df = 11, p < .001. * p < .05, t w o - t a i l e d . ** p < .01, t w o - t a i l e d . *** p < .001, t w o - t a i l e d .
--.23*** -.28"** a a a a a a
Public Utility
" R e l e v a n t d a t a n o t c o l l e c t e d for t h i s s a m p l e . b r' ' I n d i c a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o r r e l a t i o n s , p < .05.
Expectancy 1 E x p e c t a n c y 2~' Skill v a r i e t y a Task identity Autonomy Feedback from job Feedback from agents Dealing with others
Manufacturing
Nursing b
2
1 Midwestern
'FABLE 6 CORRELATIONS OF ROLE INDICES TO EXPECTANCY THEORY MEASURES AND TASK CHARACTERISTICS
t~ © Z
©
124
SCHULER, ALDAG, AND BRIEF
The correlations between role conflict and ambiguity and Expectancy 1 and Expectancy 2 were also negative, significantly in 16 of 20 cases. The coefficient of concordance was also significant and indicated a large extent of agreement and stability across five samples (W = .84; X 2 = 16.80; p < .05). The test-retest reliabilities between samples three and four were .44 (p < .001) for role conflict and .40 (p < .001) for role ambiguity. These test-retest reliabilities, although not high, indicate reasonable stability for the two scales (Kenny, 1975). The test-retest reliabilities were computed with a time interval of seven months for the same employees who were working for the same supervisor and on the same job at both time points. DISCUSSION The results of the factor analysis and coefficients of congruency indicate support for the two-factor solution and, thus, the two scales of role conflict and ambiguity developed by Rizzo et al. (1970) and used as a priori factors by most researchers. Szilagyi et al. (1976) reported similar results across a hospital and a manufacturing sample: their congruency coefficients were .99 and .96 for role conflict and ambiguity. The coefficients of concordance for role perceptions, the five facets of satisfaction, expectancies and task characteristics lend support to the construct validity and continued use of the role conflict and ambiguity scales. Furthermore, these results generally held across several different samples. Previous research suggests that controlling for additional variables such as organizational level (Hamner & Tosi, 1974; Schuler, 1975), employee ability (Schuler, 1977a), employee participation (Schuler, 1977b), locus of control (Organ & Greene, 1974b; Szilagyi et al., 1976) or need for clarity (Lyons, 1971) may produce an even greater degree of consensus on role perception relationships within and across samples. Role perceptions and performance were unrelated or significantly negatively related in the samples. This is consistent with Tosi and Tosi (1970), Tosi (1971), Rizzo et al. (1970), Schuler (1975), and Szilagyi et al. (1976). Clearly, the relationships between role perceptions and performance are smaller than those between role perceptions and satisfaction. This may be a reflection of performance scales or suggest that the effect of role perceptions of performance is less direct, e.g., through its impact on employee ability (Schuler, 1977a) than the effects on satisfaction. The data in Table 6 show that there is also construct validity based on the relationships between role conflict and ambiguity and the task characteristics (including interpersonal dimensions) and between role conflict and ambiguity and the expectancy measures. The correlations suggest that higher levels of conflict and ambiguity may prevent employees from perceiving their tasks as having high levels of identity, autonomy, or
ROLE CONFLICT
125
feedback (from job or agents). The relationships shown in Table 6 also indicate that when higher levels of role conflict and ambiguity exist there also exist lower levels of effort-performance and performance-reward probabilities. Furthermore, the coefficients of concordance in Table 6 represent agreement across fairly diverse samples and, therefore, could be even higher with greater sample homogeneity. Generally not found in this study, although fairly consistently reported in previous research, was a greater negative effect due to role ambiguity than role conflict. In fact, of the 87 pairs of correlations (RA and RC with the same outcome variable) shown in Tables 5 and 6, only 24 were significantly different. Of those 24, role ambiguity was more negatively related to the outcome variable than was role conflict in only 16 cases. These findings, however, raise important questions concerning causes for the lack of differences. The lack of differences may be due to scale reliability, intercorrelation of the role corfflict, and ambiguity scales or common source-common method variance. All of the data were collected by the same method and from the same source. However, the much larger number of significant differences in the pairs of correlations using task characteristics and performance versus satisfaction suggests that the same source-same method data collection probably did not produce artifactual results. Although the average intercorrelation between role conflict and ambiguity was moderate (.34), there appears to be no consistent relationship between their intercorrelation and the results reported in Tables 5 and 6. In sample four, where the correlation between role conflict and ambiguity was the highest, except sample one with which it was equal, there were 15 pairs of correlations of which six were significantly different. And in sample six, where the correlation between role conflict and ambiguity was the lowest of any sample analyzed, there were 20 pairs of correlations of which eight were significantly different. The scale intercorrelation, therefore, appeared not to systematically influence the results shown in Tables 5 and 6. Similarly, it appears unlikely that scale reliability affected the reported results. Although in samples two and three the role conflict and ambiguity scales had the greatest internal reliability differences, there were fewer significantly different correlations than in sample six where the internal reliabilities were nearly identical. If lack of internal reliability was producing artifacts, more differences should have occurred in samples two and three than in sample six. In general, the results suggest that role conflict and ambiguity are valid constructs in organizational behavior research and are usually associated with negatively valued states, e.g., tension, absenteeism, low satisfaction, low job involvement, low expectancies, and task characteristics with a low motivating potential (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). However, the
126
SCHULER, ALDAG, AND BRIEF
concurrent and test-retest validities examined here suggest that within and across samples differences may exist and should be examined for each sample. CONCLUSIONS The properties of the frequently used conflict and ambiguity scales developed by Rizzo et al. (1970) were examined and consistent support was found for each scale across six samples. Thus, the use of the Rizzo et al. (1970) role conflict and ambiguity scales in past research is supported. Past research has dealt mainly with the examination of role perception correlates. This research has extended the analysis of role perceptions research by examining the factor structure of the scales as well as the correlates across six samples. It is recommended that future research, using the Rizzo et al. scales be directed at several additional issues in role perception research, for example; (a) the causes, consequences and paths of causality of role conflict and ambiguity (House and Rizzo, 1972a; Miles, 1975); (b) additional situational and individual moderators of the perceptions of and responses to role conflict and ambiguity; (c) the relationships between objective and subjective levels or role conflict and ambiguity in determining multimethod validation; (d) the interaction of role conflict and ambiguity with attitudes and behaviors; and (e) methods of techniques available to reduce the detrimental effects of role conflict and ambiguity. REFERENCES Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J., (Eds.). Role theory: Concepts and research. New York: Wiley, 1966. Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J., Correlates of role indices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61,468-472. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and Discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-105. Dunham, R., Aldag, R. J., & Brief, A. P. Dimensionality of task design as measured by the job diagnostic survey. Academy of Management Journal, 1977, 20, 209-223. Evans, M. G. Convergent and discriminant validities between the Cornell job descriptive index and a measure of goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1969, 53, 102-106. Gross, N., Mason, W. S., & McEachern, A. W., Explorations in role analysis. New York: Wiley, 1958. Hamner, W. C., & Tosi, H. L. Relationships of role conflict and role ambiguity to job involvement measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 497-499. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E., III. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 1971, 55, 259-286. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 159-170. Harman, H. H. Modern factor analysis. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press, 1971.
ROLE CONFLICT
127
Homans, G. C. The human group, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1950. House, R. J., & Dessler, G. The path-goal theory of leadership: some post hoc and a priori tests. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1974. House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972a, 7, 467-505. House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. Toward the measurement of organizational practices: scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972b, 56, 388-396. Johnson, T. W., & Stinson, J. E. Role ambiguity, role conflict, and job satisfaction: the moderating effects of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 329-333. Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., & Rosenthal, R. Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. The socialpsychology of organizations. New York: Wiley, 1966. Keller, R. T. Role c.onflict and ambiguity: correlates with job satisfaction and values. Personnel Psychology, 1975, 28, 57-64. Kenny, D. A. Cross-lagged panel correlation: a test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82, 887-903. Lawler, E. E. The rxaultitrait-multirater approach to measuring managerial job performance. Journal of App~ried Psychology, 1967, 51, 369-380. Lawler, E. E., & Suttle, J. L. Expectancy theory and job behavior. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Petformance, 1973, 9, 482-503. Lichtman, C. M., & Hunt, R. G. Personality and organization theory: a review of some conceptual literature. PsychologicalBulletin, 1971, 76, 271-294. Lodahl, T. M., and Kejner, M. The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 24-33. Lyons, T. Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 99-110. Miles, R. H. An empirical test of causal inference between role perceptions of conflict and ambiguity and various personal outcomes. Journal of Appffed Psychology, 1975, 60, 334-339. Miles, R. H. A comparison of the relative impact of role perceptions of ambiguity and conflict by role. Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 19, 25-35. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Organ, P. W., & Greene, C. N. The perceived purposefulness of job behavior: antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 1974a, 17, 69-78. Organ, D. W., & Greene, C. N. Role ambiguity, locus of control and work satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974b, 59, 101-102. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 150-163. Robinson, J. P., Athanasiou, R., & Head, K. B. Measures of occupational attitudes and occupational characteristics. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 1969. Rub, R. A., White, J. K., & Wood, R. R. Job involvement, values, personal background, participation in decision making and job attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 1975, 18, 300-312. Schuler, R. S. Role perceptions, satisfaction and performance: a partial reconciliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 683-687. Schuler, R. S. The effects of role perceptions on employee satisfaction and performance moderated by e~aployee ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977a, 13, 98-107.
128
SCHULER, ALDAG~ AND BRIEF
Schuler, R. S. Role perceptions, satisfaction and performance moderated by organization level and participation in decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 1977b, 20, 159-165. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Smith, P., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1969. Szilagyi, A. D., Sims, H. P. Jr., & Keller, R. T. Role dynamics, locus of control and employee attitudes and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 19, 259-276. Thurstone, L. L. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1947. Tosi, H. L. Organizational stress as a moderator of the relationship between influence and role response. Academy of Management Journal, 1971, 14, 7-20. Tosi, D., & Tosi, H. L. Some correlates of role conflict and role ambiguity among public school teachers. Journal of Human Relations, 1970, 18, 1068--1076. Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. Vroom, V. H. Some personality determininants of the effects of participation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 322-327.
REFERENCE NOTE 1. Brief, A. P., & R. J. Aldag. A scale for the assessment of search behavior. Unpublished technical note. Univ. of Iowa, 1975. RECEIVED: September 27, 1976
Role Conflict and Ambiguity: A Scale Analysis RANDALL S. SCHULER
The Pennsylvania State University RAMON J. ALDAG
University of Wisconsin-Madison AND ARTHUR P . BRIEF
The University of lowa Role theo~2¢ 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 reliabifities, 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.
Role theory has been proposed as a framework in which to examine the behavior of individuals in organizations (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Lichtman & Hunt, 1971; Homans, 1950). Although definitions of "role" are numerous, it is defined here as "the set of prescriptions defining what the behavior of a position member should be" (Biddle & Thomas, 1966, p. 29). Katz and Kahn (1%6) suggest that role concepts are "the major means for linking the individual and organizational levels of research and theory; it is at once the building block of social systems and the summation of the requirements with which such systems confront their members as individuals" (p. 197). Roles serve as the boundary between the individual and the organization. Roles represent the expectations of the individual and the organization. Roles can thus serve to tie the individual to the organization and the
The authors wish to express their appreciation for the encouragement of this article by R. J. House and for critical comments on an earlier version of this manuscript made by R. J. House and two anonymous reviewers. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Randall S. Schuler, 1775 College Road, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210. 111 Copyright© 1977by AcademicPress, Inc. All rightsof reproductionin any formreserved.
ISSN 0030-5073
112
SCHULER, ALDAG, AND BRIEF
organization to the individual. Although roles can be functional for the individual and the organization, they can also be extremely dysfunctional (Gross, Mason, & McEachern, 1958; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Kahn et al. (1964) elaborated upon the dysfunctions of roles using the concepts of role conflict and role ambiguity. Kahn et al. (1964) and Gross et al. (1958) reported that the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict and ambiguity were tension, turnover, dissatisfactions, anxiety, and lower performance. Role conflict was defined as a condition of incompatible sent roles to the focal person, and role ambiguity was defined as the existence of a lack of clarity in the sent roles. Both role conflict and ambiguity have been defined as having objective and subjective or perceived components. Kahn et al. (1964) proposed that both objective and perceived role conflict and ambiguity would be influenced by organizational characteristics such as organizational position and personal characteristics such as perceptual bias. In order to systematically examine the role concepts of ambiguity and conflict and their relationships with organizational and personal variables, Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) constructed, from a factor analysis of 29 items, two scales called role conflict and role ambiguity. Role conflict had eight items and role ambiguity had six items. Some construct validity for these scales was also reported by Rizzo et aI. (1970). With the adoption of these scales by other researchers, some measurement uniformity in the role conflict and ambiguity research has been achieved since 1970. Not all studies, however, used the scales from the original factor analysis of Rizzo et al. 1 The following studies researching role conflict and ambiguity have used the Rizzo et al. (1970) scales: House and Rizzo, 1972a; Schuler, 1975; Brief and Aldag, 1976; Schuler, 1977a, b; Keller, 1975; Szilagyi, Sims, and Keller, 1976; Hamner and Tosi, 1974; Miles, 1975, 1976; Tosi and Tosi, 1970; Tosi, 1971; Organ and Greene, 1974a, b. Although the role conflict and ambiguity scales as derived by Rizzo et al. (1970) have been utilized extensively, their psychometric properties have gone unexamined except for the analysis done in the original Rizzo et al. (1970) study and the Szilagyi et al. (1976) study. Johnson and Stinson (1975) factor analyzed the original list of items described by Rizzo et al. (1970) but also added four from Kahn et al. (1964). It is, therefore, the purpose of this paper to examine the properties of the 14-item scale containing the role conflict and ambiguity items. Specifically, this study will examine the factor structure of these 14 items across six samples, their coefficients of congruency, internal reliabilities, intercorrelations, test1 For example, Tosi and Tosi (1970) and Tosi (1974) selected 10 items from the twentynine in the original Rizzo e t al. (1970) list for each role scale. Organ and Greene (1974b) selected eleven items for role ambiguity from the Rizzo et al. (1970) list of items.
ROLE CONFLICT
113
retest reliabi.lities, correlations with attitudinal and behavioral variables, and the levels of role conflict and ambiguity across several diverse samples. Some correlates of the role conflict and ambiguity scales are available for less than all the samples examined, but the factor analyses, congruency coefficients, internal refiabilities, and levels of conflict and ambiguity are available for all the samples. METHOD
Samples Data were collected from 1573 employees in six samples in four different organizations. Sample one, Midwestern Nursing, consists of 374 nursing personnel from a Midwestern hospital. All levels of personnel from nursing aides to head nurses are represented. Sample two, Manufacturing, consists of 362 employees of a Midwestern manufacturing firm. Sample three, Public Utility I, is composed of 399 employees of a Midwestern company involved in the communication industry. Sample four, Public Utility II, consists of 272 employees of the same firm as those in sample three. Members of sample four were surveyed seven months after those in sample three. There are 224 members of sample three with the same job and supervisor who are also in sample four. Sample five, Southern Hospital Workers, is composed of 99 food service and janitorial workers of a large Southern university hospital. Finally, sample six, Southern Nursing Aides, consists of 70 nursing aides and assistants drawn from the same hospital as were members of sample five. Measures Satsifaction with work itself, pay, co-workers, supervision, promotional opportunities were measured by the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Its psychometric properties are evaluated by Robinson, Athanasiou, and Head (1969). Job involvement (JI), a measure of the degree to which the employee is heavily involved in and dedicated to his work, was assessed by use of an early version of the Job Diagnostic Survey (The Yale Job Inventory) (Hackman & Lawler, 1971). In samples two, three, and four, JI was measured by nine items taken by Rub, White, and Wood (1975) from Lodahl and Kejner (1965). Anxiety-stress, a measure of somatic tension, job-induced anxiety, and general fatigue and uneasiness, was gauged by an 18-item instrument which is a slightly revised version of that developed by House and Rizzo (1972a). Items were summed to yield a single anxiety-stress score. A nine-item tension scale measuring the frequency of feeling bothered by work-related factors was taken from Lyons (1971). The nine items in the index were selected by Lyons from a longer list used by Kahn et al. (1964). Propensity to leave was measured by a three-item instrument de-
114
SCHULER, ALDAG, AND BRIEF
veloped by Lyons (1971). Search behavior was assessed by a six-item scale developed by Brief and Aldag (Note 1). To measure termination in sample six, the current status of surveyed employees was checked six months after the time of data collection. The host organization provided information concerning which respondents were no longer employed but did not indicate whether termination was voluntary or involuntary. Role conflict (RC) and role ambiguity (RA) were measured by eight items and six items, respectively, taken from Rizzo et al. 's (1970) factor analysis. The first six items shown in Table 2 measured role ambiguity and the last eight items measured role conflict. Role conflict is conceptualized as the degree of incongruity of expectations associated with a role. Role ambiguity is conceptualized as the lack of clarity of role expectations and the degree of uncertainty regarding the outcomes of one's role performance. The e x p e c t a n c y items for samples two, three, and four were categorized into effort-performance relations (Expectancy 1) and performance-reward relations (Expectancy 2). These items were originally developed by House and Dessler (1974), but adapted for use in samples three and four. Expectancy theory measures for sample six were taken from Lawler and Suttle (1973) and also measured Expectancy 1 and Expectancy 2. Measures of four perceived job characteristics and two interpersonal dimensions for samples four, five, and six were taken from the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). The job dimension perceptions gauged were skill variety, task identity, autonomy, and feedback from the job itself. The interpersonal dimensions considered were feedback from agents and dealing with others. Psychometric properties of the JDS are examined by Dunham, Aldag, and Brief (1977). Performance was measured by a variety of methods, each tailored to suit the particular sample. In sample one, the supervisors rated their employees on a seven-point measure of the quality of performance. In sample two, employee performance was determined from peer and supervisory rankings. The peers and supervisors were asked to rank, in quartiles (1-4, with 1 the best), their fellow employees or subordinates in terms of their overall job performance. Performance rankings were analyzed for 177 employees from 27 supervisors and 193 fellow employees (peers). Employees without peer and supervisor rankings were omitted from the performance analysis. Such an overall job performance measure has been found to yield results similar to a more extensive checklist or rating form (Lawler, 1967). The correlation between the sum of the items used in the supervisory and peer rankings (r = .58) suggested a common performance dimension; therefore, the rankings were averaged. The employee performance criterion in samples three and four was a
ROLE CONFLICT
115
measure used by the organization in its performance evaluation system, both for pay purposes and for promotion purposes. All employees are compared against each other at each salary level in the organization. This is accomplished when the supervisor of an employee at a given salary level meets with the supervisors of all other employees at the same level to evaluate jointly each subordinate represented. These sessions are under the direction of the supervisors' immediate superiors, who also can provide input to the process. The subordinates are primarily judged on the degree to which each has met his job objectives for the previous year. In cases of similar accomplishment, the evaluators then use the criterion "contribution to the business." The evaluations are forced by the company into a distribution with approximately 15% "outstanding" (assigned as "1"), and less than 1% "incompetent" (assigned a "4"). In sample three, the mean was 1.94 and the standard deviation was .64. The actual sample distribution for each value was 95 for " 1 , " 240 for "2," 55 for "3," and 9 for " 4 . " In sample four, the mean was 1.95 and the standard deviation was .54. There were no "4s," but there was 46 " l s , " 193 "2s," and 33 "3s." In sample five, performance data were obtained from supervisors and employees. The employees completed serf-ratings on their quality and quantity of performance on a 7-point scale. The mean and standard deviation for quality self-ratings were 5.54 and 1.55, respectively. The supervisors completed two five-item scales on quality and quantity of performance rating from outstanding to falling below requirements. The mean and standard deviation of the supervisory quality rating were 3.58 and 0.72, respectively, while for the supervisory rating those figures were 3.61 and 0.69, respectively. These are the performance ratings used by the host organization for this group of employees. The performance data in sample six were also gathered from the employee and the supervisor. Employees provided a rating of their perceived quality of job performance on a 7-point scale. The mean and standard deviation for this scale were 5.94 and 1.10, respectively. Also, performance ratings were provided by the hospital. Those ratings consisted of a checklist of strengths and weaknesses, which were filled out by the immediate supervisor of the employee. The percentage of checked items that were strengths was used as an aggregate performance index. The mean and standard deviation for this measure were 0.84 and 0.09, respectively. This is the performance rating used by the host organization for this group of employees. For both samples five and six, the self- and supervisor repor~:s of quality and quantity were essentially unrelated. In sample five the correlation between self- and supervisor ratings on quality and quantity were .08 and .12, respectively, both nonsignificant. The correlation between self- and supervisor rating of quality in sample six
116
SCHULER, ALDAG, AND BRIEF
was .38. Although the correlation in sample six was significant, the ratings were not combined because of the relatively low common variance the ratings shared. The internal reliabilities, where applicable, for the scales are in Table 1. Analysis For each sample, zero-order correlations between role indices and all other variables were computed. Also, an inter-item correlation matrix was calculated for the six role ambiguity and eight role conflict items included in the Rizzo et al. (1970) scale. Principal Components Factor Analyses were conducted on the correlation matrices using multiple correlations for communality estimates (see Thurstone, 1947). Two factor varimax rotations were obtained for each sample, and factor congruency values (Harman, 1971) were calculated. In addition, internal reliability estimates (Nunnally, 1967) were computed for each role scale. Test-retest reliabilities were computed for role conflict and ambiguity with the matched respondents in samples three and four. RESULTS Varimax rotated factor loadings, eigenvalues, and explained variance are shown in Table 2. It should be noted that in none of the six samples did more than two eigenvalues exceed unity. However, in samples one, five, and six, only one eigenvalue exceeded unity. Using the criterion that only TABLE 1 INTERNAL REL1ABILITIES b
Measure Job involvement Anxiety-stress Job related tension Propensity to leave Search behavior Expectancy 1 Expectancy 2 Skill variety Task identity Autonomy Feedback from job Feedback from agents Dealing with others
Midwest Nursing Manufacturing
Public Utility
Public Utility
1
2
Southern Southern Hospital Nursing Workers Aides
.68 a
.87 a
.89 a
.83 a
.80 .82
a .70
a a
a a
a a
a a
a .81
.77 .78
a
a
a
a
.84
.76
a a .91 .63 .69 .62 .76 .50
.79 .84 a a a a a a
.62 .79 a a a a a a
.84 .94 .89 .96 .80 .73 .80 .88
a a .20 .31 .35 .47 .56 .40
c .85 .47 .47 .55 .30 .67 .63
a Relevant data not collected for this sample. Cronbach alpha internal reliabilities. c Single item scale.
ROLE CONVLmT
117
a number of factors equal to the number of eigenvalues greater than unity should be retained, rotation of two factors for those samples would not be justified. However, since the absolute value of eigenvalues should not be used as the sole determinant of the most appropriate number of factors to retain, since the second eigenvalue for each sample exceeded .9, and since the researchers desired to assess stability of the two-factor solution across samples, two factors were rotated for each sample. In their scale development,, Rizzo et al. (1970) selected those items loading above .3 on only a single factor. Applying that criterion, the number of noncomplex loading items for each sample shown in Table 2 is, respectively, t3, 13, 14, 11, 10, and 13. The item, "I work on unnecessary things," loads noncomplex in o~aly two samples. Using a more conservative criterion of .4, the number of noncomplex items for each sample is 13, 12, 13, 10, 10 and 10, respectively. Factor congruencies are presented in Table 3. For both role conflict and role ambiguity, all factor congruencies between samples exceed .8. Median congruencies for role conflict and role ambiguity are .92 and .91, respectively. For role conflict and role ambiguity, 14 of 15 and 10 of 15 congruencies, respectively, meet or exceed Harman's (1971) criterion of .9 for acceptable stability. The off-diagonal congruencies offer further support for treating role conflict and ambiguity as separate factors. For each sample, means, standard deviations, internal consistency reliabilities, and intercorrelations of the role conflict and role ambiguity indices are presented in Table 4. All internal consistency reliabilities exceed Nunnally's (1967) criterion of .5 to .6 for instruments in early stages of development, with those in all but o n e sample exceeding .7. The RA and RC scales were positively correlated (r = .34). It should be noted that samples 5 and 6 were each drawn from employees at the lowest level of the organization with limited education and extremely well-defined jobs. Those characteristics are the probable causes of both the very low reported role ambiguity in samples 5 and 6 and the relatively low internal consistency reliabilities of scales for those samples. The data in Table 5 are the correlations between role perceptions and employee attitudes and behavior. These attitudes and behaviors have frequently been used as criteria variables in the studies on role perceptions cited earlier. The correlations between role perceptions and the facets of satisfaction were uniformly significantly negative across the samples except for sample six, Southern Nursing Aides, where most of the correlations were not significant. The coefficient of concordance (Siegel, 1956) was used to assess the similarities across samples in the relative magnitude of the correlations between role conflict and ambiguity and each of the facets of satisfaction. For example, a coefficient of concordance of 1 indicates that the correla-
RA
1, I have clear, planned goals and objectives for m y -.41 job. -.52 2. I know that I have divided nay time properly -.70 3. I know what m y responsibilities are. -.71 4. I k n o w exactly what is expected of me. 5. I feel certain about h o w m u c h authority I h a v e --.58 on the job. -.56 6. Explanation is clear of what h a s to be done. 7. I have to do things that should be done differently .27 u n d e r different conditions. 8. I receive an assignment without the m a n p o w e r .20 to complete it.
Item °
2
-.58 -.65 -.83 -.83 -.72 -.69 -.17 .08
-.18 -.29 ,37 .44
RA
-.22 -.21 -.04 -.15
RC
.63
.38
-.08 -.20
-.03 -.10 -.08 -.13
RC
Midwestern Nursing Manufacturing
1
.00
--.08
-.69 -.68
-.61 -.40 -.79 -.83
RA
.57
.34
-.15 -.23
-.01 -.00 -.04 -.13
RC
Public Utility
3
TABLE 2 VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS
.03
.28
-.62 --.56
-.65 -.37 -.71 -.72
RA
.53
.58
-,24 -.25
-,26 -.02 -.30 -.20
RC
Public Utility
4
.01
.34
-.59 -.40
-.40 -.41 -.51 -.57
RA
.40
.29
--.09 -.23
.13 .18 .02 -.05
RC
5 Southern Hospital Workers
.15
.06
-.50 -.58
-.27 -.63 -.56 -.69
RA
.32
.71
-.04 -.38
-.06 .02 .12 -.09
RC
6 Southern Nursing Aides
Z
~7
.67 .56 .51 .41
.18 .10 .29 .35 15.4 -9.2
.40
.01
17.9 3.7
.50
.29
25.5 4.5
.20 .46
.18
.20
.04
.17
21.0 2.05
.64 .45
.69
.72
.60
.61
21.5 3.7
.29 .25
.22
.10
-.01
.12
17.8 1.8
.58 .42
.56
.67
.50
.67
17.4 2.7
.25 .35
-.08
.22
.07
.19
14.5 1.8
.67 .31
.07
,61
.33
.64
13.2 2.0
-.02 .35
.38
-.01
-.04
.19
8.4 .99
.48 .41
.24
.45
.32
.25
First six items were ordered to represent Role Ambiguity and the last eight items were ordered to represent Role Conflict.
Percentage variance explained Eigenvalues
9. I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment. 10. I work with two or more groups w h o operate quite differently. 11. I receive incompatible requests from two or more people. 12. I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not by others. 13. I receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials to execute it. 14. I work on unnecessary things.
18.9 4.1
-.08 .08
.29
-.11
.03
.18
16.9 .95
.41 .62
.57
.73
.35
.34
H
O Z
~"
120
SCHULER~ ALDAG~ AND BRIEF TABLE 3 FACTOR CONGRUENCIES 1 RC
1. Midwestern Nursing 2. Manufacturing 3. Public Utility I 4. Public Utility II
RC RA RC RA RC RA RC RA
5. Southern Hospital RC Workers RA 6. Southern Nursing RC Aides RA
2
3
4
5
6
RA
RC
RA
RC
RA
RC
RA
RC
RA
RC
--
.97 .49 --
.48 ,95
.97 .46 .99 .38 --
.49 .95 .36 .98
.50 .45 .94 ,30 .90 .28 --
.38 .97 .27 .88 .27 .95
.88 .52 .92 .40 .94 .40 .86 .11
.39 .93 .25 .90 .23 .90 .42 .90
.89 .66 ,52 .92 .93 .48 .38 .91 .91 .48 .40 .90 .83 .39 .34 .82
--
.91 .32
--
--
--
--
--
RA
.50 .91
tion between role ambiguity and satisfaction with work (or any other facet of satisfaction) was consistently the largest in all six samples, the correlation between role ambiguity and satisfaction with supervisor (or any other facet of satisfaction) was the second largest in all six samples and so on. A high coefficient of concordance across six different samples can suggest high construct validity. The coefficient of concordance for the relationships between role conflict and ambiguity and the five facets of satisfaction was highly significant (W = .61; X 2 = 32.94;p < .001). The correlation between the role perceptions and performance were generally mixed. In samples three and four, role ambiguity was negatively related to overall performance. In sample six, self-rating of quality was negatively related to role conflict and supervisor rating of quality was negatively related to role ambiguity. The results of these correlations are consistent with the pattern of results found across other studies (Tosi & Tosi, 1970; House & Rizzo, 1972a; Schuler, 1975). Consistent with House and Rizzo (1972b) and Tosi (1971), the correlations between anxietystress, tension and propensity to leave were positively related to role conflict and ambiguity in samples five and six. Table 6 shows the correlations between the role perceptions and expectancy measures and the task and interpersonal characteristics. Consistent with Brief and Aldag (1976), the correlations between role conflict and ambiguity and the task characteristics were negative. The stability of these relationships across four samples was supported by the coefficient of concordance (W = .52; X 2 = 22.88; p < .001).
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
374 362 399 272 99 70 I99 91
3.26 3.79 4.07 3.99 3.57 3.14 4.19 3.86
Mean" 1.05 1.21 .81 .94 1.23 1.19 1.21 1.27
SD .753 .715 .775 .820 .557 .719 ,816 .820
Internal consistency reliability 2.60 3.36 3.22 3.50 1.41 1.23 3.79 4.03
Mean .96 1.26 1.03 1.02 1.18 1.04 1.08 1.15
SD .783 .808 .834 .873 .634 .707 .780 .808
Internal consistency reliability
Role ambiguity
Means and standard deviations for average item scores computed on the basis of 7-point scales. * p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .001, two-tailed.
Midwestern Nursing Manufacturing Public Utility I Public Utility II Southern Hospital Workers Southern Nursing Aides Rizzo et al., Sample A Rizzo et al., Sample B
Sample
Sample size
Role conflict
TABLE 4 SAMPLE CHARACTERiS-IiCS OF ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY
.50** .35** .34** .49** .21" .18 .25* .01
Correlation of ambiguity to conflict
H
o Z
O
quality quantity rating, quality rating, quantity
5
-.18"** -.10 -.20*** -.32*** -.12" -.24*** a a a a a a a a .07 a
-.18"** a a a a a a a a .04 a
RA
-.21"* .14"* -.38*** -.38*** -.17"**
RC
1 Midwestern Nursing
-.1'2" a a a a a -.05 a a a a
.36*** -.19"* .22** -.33** .35***
RC
-.39*** a a a a a -.02 a a a a
-.47*** -.19"* -.31"** -.39*** -.38***
RA
Manufacturing
2
.18" a a a a a -.0~ a a a a
-.20"** -.25*** -.27*** .31"** -.28***
RC b
-.35*** a a a a a -.19"** a a a a
-.4i*** -.t3"* -.20*** -.43*** -.27***
RA
3 Public U t i l i t y I RA
- . 2 8*rT~* a a a a a -.03 a a a a
-.41%** a a a a a -.12" a a a a
-.35*** -.40*** - . 3 ~ * * .34*** - . 2 9 * * * -.40*** -.45*** -.31"** -.33***
RC
4 Public U t i l i t y II
R e l e v a n t data not collected for this sample. b( - - 1 Indicates significant difference b e t w e e n c o r r e l a t i o n s , p < .05. c Coefficient of concordance (gO for the five facets o f satisfaction across six s a m p l e s = .61; X 2 - 32.94; d f = 9, p < .001. * p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed. *** p < .001, two-tailed.
Job i n v o l v e m e n t Anxiety-stress Job related tension Propensity to l e a v e Search b e h a v i o r Termination Performance Performance self-rating, Performance self-rating, Performance s u p e r v i s o r Performance s u p e r v i s o r
Satisfaction with ~ Work Pay Coworkers Supervision Promotions
Response
TABLE CORRELATIONS OF ROLE INDICES TO EMPLOYEE RESPONSES
-.18" .17 a .17 ,31"** a a .12 .16 .09 -.08
-.26** -.20* -.37*** .43*** -.16
RC
-.2Tr~--71 a a - . 0 ~ * a a
a .~'0" .30** .25* .11 .21" a
-.09 .06 .05 -.16 -.15
RA
.03 -.03 .00
.4~~ .48*** .23* .18 .0'4 a
-.29"* -.06 -.10 -.29"* .04
RC
.18
-.12 .12 a .15 .15 a a
.39*** -.30** -.27** -.49*** -.29**
RA
5 6 Southern Hospital Southern Nursing Workers Aides
> Z
>
bo
--.04 -.0'~--~0 .02 -.28*** -.07 -.15"* -.19"** -.19"**
--.28"** .... .04 -.25*** -.12" -.12" -.28*** -.28***
--.1~9"** .14*w~-~ - . £ 1 " * * a a a a a a a a a a a a
3
.17"** -.1~** a a a a a a -.16"* -.30*** .63 - . 2 8r * * * --.24*** r --.23*** --.3~ .08
-.18"* -.36*** -.1~** -.39*** --.47*** 1 --.43*** --.53"** .06
Public Utility
4
a a .14 -.12 .34*** .32*** --.28*** --.05
a a -.01 -.09 --.31"** --.31"** --.35*** --.17"
5 Southern Hospital Workers
- . 2 ~ -.11 --.08 -.28* --.31"* --.10 - - . 3 ~ *G? --.03
1 -.20* -.15 -.21" --.20* --.27* --.1'i .11
6 Southern Nursing Aides
~' C o e f f i c i e n t o f C o n c o r d a n c e (W) for t h e m e a s u r e s of E x p e c t a n c y 1 a n d E x p e c t a n c y 2 a c r o s s f i v e s a m p l e s = .84; X 2 = 16.80; s = 105; p < .05. a C o e f f i c i e n t o f C o n c o r d a n c e (W) for t h e six t a s k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a c r o s s f o u r s a m p l e s = .52; X 2 = 22.88; df = 11, p < .001. * p < .05, t w o - t a i l e d . ** p < .01, t w o - t a i l e d . *** p < .001, t w o - t a i l e d .
--.23*** -.28"** a a a a a a
Public Utility
" R e l e v a n t d a t a n o t c o l l e c t e d for t h i s s a m p l e . b r' ' I n d i c a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o r r e l a t i o n s , p < .05.
Expectancy 1 E x p e c t a n c y 2~' Skill v a r i e t y a Task identity Autonomy Feedback from job Feedback from agents Dealing with others
Manufacturing
Nursing b
2
1 Midwestern
'FABLE 6 CORRELATIONS OF ROLE INDICES TO EXPECTANCY THEORY MEASURES AND TASK CHARACTERISTICS
t~ © Z
©
124
SCHULER, ALDAG, AND BRIEF
The correlations between role conflict and ambiguity and Expectancy 1 and Expectancy 2 were also negative, significantly in 16 of 20 cases. The coefficient of concordance was also significant and indicated a large extent of agreement and stability across five samples (W = .84; X 2 = 16.80; p < .05). The test-retest reliabilities between samples three and four were .44 (p < .001) for role conflict and .40 (p < .001) for role ambiguity. These test-retest reliabilities, although not high, indicate reasonable stability for the two scales (Kenny, 1975). The test-retest reliabilities were computed with a time interval of seven months for the same employees who were working for the same supervisor and on the same job at both time points. DISCUSSION The results of the factor analysis and coefficients of congruency indicate support for the two-factor solution and, thus, the two scales of role conflict and ambiguity developed by Rizzo et al. (1970) and used as a priori factors by most researchers. Szilagyi et al. (1976) reported similar results across a hospital and a manufacturing sample: their congruency coefficients were .99 and .96 for role conflict and ambiguity. The coefficients of concordance for role perceptions, the five facets of satisfaction, expectancies and task characteristics lend support to the construct validity and continued use of the role conflict and ambiguity scales. Furthermore, these results generally held across several different samples. Previous research suggests that controlling for additional variables such as organizational level (Hamner & Tosi, 1974; Schuler, 1975), employee ability (Schuler, 1977a), employee participation (Schuler, 1977b), locus of control (Organ & Greene, 1974b; Szilagyi et al., 1976) or need for clarity (Lyons, 1971) may produce an even greater degree of consensus on role perception relationships within and across samples. Role perceptions and performance were unrelated or significantly negatively related in the samples. This is consistent with Tosi and Tosi (1970), Tosi (1971), Rizzo et al. (1970), Schuler (1975), and Szilagyi et al. (1976). Clearly, the relationships between role perceptions and performance are smaller than those between role perceptions and satisfaction. This may be a reflection of performance scales or suggest that the effect of role perceptions of performance is less direct, e.g., through its impact on employee ability (Schuler, 1977a) than the effects on satisfaction. The data in Table 6 show that there is also construct validity based on the relationships between role conflict and ambiguity and the task characteristics (including interpersonal dimensions) and between role conflict and ambiguity and the expectancy measures. The correlations suggest that higher levels of conflict and ambiguity may prevent employees from perceiving their tasks as having high levels of identity, autonomy, or
ROLE CONFLICT
125
feedback (from job or agents). The relationships shown in Table 6 also indicate that when higher levels of role conflict and ambiguity exist there also exist lower levels of effort-performance and performance-reward probabilities. Furthermore, the coefficients of concordance in Table 6 represent agreement across fairly diverse samples and, therefore, could be even higher with greater sample homogeneity. Generally not found in this study, although fairly consistently reported in previous research, was a greater negative effect due to role ambiguity than role conflict. In fact, of the 87 pairs of correlations (RA and RC with the same outcome variable) shown in Tables 5 and 6, only 24 were significantly different. Of those 24, role ambiguity was more negatively related to the outcome variable than was role conflict in only 16 cases. These findings, however, raise important questions concerning causes for the lack of differences. The lack of differences may be due to scale reliability, intercorrelation of the role corfflict, and ambiguity scales or common source-common method variance. All of the data were collected by the same method and from the same source. However, the much larger number of significant differences in the pairs of correlations using task characteristics and performance versus satisfaction suggests that the same source-same method data collection probably did not produce artifactual results. Although the average intercorrelation between role conflict and ambiguity was moderate (.34), there appears to be no consistent relationship between their intercorrelation and the results reported in Tables 5 and 6. In sample four, where the correlation between role conflict and ambiguity was the highest, except sample one with which it was equal, there were 15 pairs of correlations of which six were significantly different. And in sample six, where the correlation between role conflict and ambiguity was the lowest of any sample analyzed, there were 20 pairs of correlations of which eight were significantly different. The scale intercorrelation, therefore, appeared not to systematically influence the results shown in Tables 5 and 6. Similarly, it appears unlikely that scale reliability affected the reported results. Although in samples two and three the role conflict and ambiguity scales had the greatest internal reliability differences, there were fewer significantly different correlations than in sample six where the internal reliabilities were nearly identical. If lack of internal reliability was producing artifacts, more differences should have occurred in samples two and three than in sample six. In general, the results suggest that role conflict and ambiguity are valid constructs in organizational behavior research and are usually associated with negatively valued states, e.g., tension, absenteeism, low satisfaction, low job involvement, low expectancies, and task characteristics with a low motivating potential (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). However, the
126
SCHULER, ALDAG, AND BRIEF
concurrent and test-retest validities examined here suggest that within and across samples differences may exist and should be examined for each sample. CONCLUSIONS The properties of the frequently used conflict and ambiguity scales developed by Rizzo et al. (1970) were examined and consistent support was found for each scale across six samples. Thus, the use of the Rizzo et al. (1970) role conflict and ambiguity scales in past research is supported. Past research has dealt mainly with the examination of role perception correlates. This research has extended the analysis of role perceptions research by examining the factor structure of the scales as well as the correlates across six samples. It is recommended that future research, using the Rizzo et al. scales be directed at several additional issues in role perception research, for example; (a) the causes, consequences and paths of causality of role conflict and ambiguity (House and Rizzo, 1972a; Miles, 1975); (b) additional situational and individual moderators of the perceptions of and responses to role conflict and ambiguity; (c) the relationships between objective and subjective levels or role conflict and ambiguity in determining multimethod validation; (d) the interaction of role conflict and ambiguity with attitudes and behaviors; and (e) methods of techniques available to reduce the detrimental effects of role conflict and ambiguity. REFERENCES Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J., (Eds.). Role theory: Concepts and research. New York: Wiley, 1966. Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J., Correlates of role indices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61,468-472. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and Discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-105. Dunham, R., Aldag, R. J., & Brief, A. P. Dimensionality of task design as measured by the job diagnostic survey. Academy of Management Journal, 1977, 20, 209-223. Evans, M. G. Convergent and discriminant validities between the Cornell job descriptive index and a measure of goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1969, 53, 102-106. Gross, N., Mason, W. S., & McEachern, A. W., Explorations in role analysis. New York: Wiley, 1958. Hamner, W. C., & Tosi, H. L. Relationships of role conflict and role ambiguity to job involvement measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 497-499. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E., III. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 1971, 55, 259-286. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 159-170. Harman, H. H. Modern factor analysis. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press, 1971.
ROLE CONFLICT
127
Homans, G. C. The human group, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1950. House, R. J., & Dessler, G. The path-goal theory of leadership: some post hoc and a priori tests. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1974. House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972a, 7, 467-505. House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. Toward the measurement of organizational practices: scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972b, 56, 388-396. Johnson, T. W., & Stinson, J. E. Role ambiguity, role conflict, and job satisfaction: the moderating effects of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 329-333. Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., & Rosenthal, R. Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. The socialpsychology of organizations. New York: Wiley, 1966. Keller, R. T. Role c.onflict and ambiguity: correlates with job satisfaction and values. Personnel Psychology, 1975, 28, 57-64. Kenny, D. A. Cross-lagged panel correlation: a test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82, 887-903. Lawler, E. E. The rxaultitrait-multirater approach to measuring managerial job performance. Journal of App~ried Psychology, 1967, 51, 369-380. Lawler, E. E., & Suttle, J. L. Expectancy theory and job behavior. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Petformance, 1973, 9, 482-503. Lichtman, C. M., & Hunt, R. G. Personality and organization theory: a review of some conceptual literature. PsychologicalBulletin, 1971, 76, 271-294. Lodahl, T. M., and Kejner, M. The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 24-33. Lyons, T. Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 99-110. Miles, R. H. An empirical test of causal inference between role perceptions of conflict and ambiguity and various personal outcomes. Journal of Appffed Psychology, 1975, 60, 334-339. Miles, R. H. A comparison of the relative impact of role perceptions of ambiguity and conflict by role. Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 19, 25-35. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Organ, P. W., & Greene, C. N. The perceived purposefulness of job behavior: antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 1974a, 17, 69-78. Organ, D. W., & Greene, C. N. Role ambiguity, locus of control and work satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974b, 59, 101-102. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 150-163. Robinson, J. P., Athanasiou, R., & Head, K. B. Measures of occupational attitudes and occupational characteristics. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 1969. Rub, R. A., White, J. K., & Wood, R. R. Job involvement, values, personal background, participation in decision making and job attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 1975, 18, 300-312. Schuler, R. S. Role perceptions, satisfaction and performance: a partial reconciliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 683-687. Schuler, R. S. The effects of role perceptions on employee satisfaction and performance moderated by e~aployee ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977a, 13, 98-107.
128
SCHULER, ALDAG~ AND BRIEF
Schuler, R. S. Role perceptions, satisfaction and performance moderated by organization level and participation in decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 1977b, 20, 159-165. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Smith, P., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1969. Szilagyi, A. D., Sims, H. P. Jr., & Keller, R. T. Role dynamics, locus of control and employee attitudes and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 19, 259-276. Thurstone, L. L. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1947. Tosi, H. L. Organizational stress as a moderator of the relationship between influence and role response. Academy of Management Journal, 1971, 14, 7-20. Tosi, D., & Tosi, H. L. Some correlates of role conflict and role ambiguity among public school teachers. Journal of Human Relations, 1970, 18, 1068--1076. Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. Vroom, V. H. Some personality determininants of the effects of participation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 322-327.
REFERENCE NOTE 1. Brief, A. P., & R. J. Aldag. A scale for the assessment of search behavior. Unpublished technical note. Univ. of Iowa, 1975. RECEIVED: September 27, 1976