Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The subject of stress and its impact on performance has received limited empirical attention in the new product
development eld. The present study examines the impact of three work stressors (i.e., role ambiguity, role conict,
and pressure for performance) on team job satisfaction and three dimensions of new product performance: adherence to budget and schedule, product quality, and market success. Data were collected using a cross sectional, Webbased survey among Spanish innovative rms. A total of 197 questionnaires was received. Findings from this
research suggest that role conict and role ambiguity are negatively related to team job satisfaction. Results, however, show a lack of association between pressure for performance and job satisfaction. Regarding the effect of work
stressors on new product performance, ndings indicate that different stressors have different relationships with
performance. Concerning role ambiguity, ndings provide empirical evidence of a U-shaped relationship between
role ambiguity and adherence to budget and schedule and between role ambiguity and product quality. Thus, intermediate levels of role ambiguity are hurtful, but low and high levels of role ambiguity are helpful. Nonetheless,
given that the levels of ambiguity measured in this study are not high enough, the ndings regarding the impact of
moderate to high levels of ambiguity on new product performance should be viewed as tentative. Role conict has a
negative linear relationship with adherence to budget schedule and an inverted U-shaped relationship with product
quality. For pressure for performance, ndings indicate a triphasic effect on product quality. Specically, the initial
phase is characterized by increasingly lower levels of product quality owing to increasing levels of pressure for
performance. As pressure for performance keeps further increasing, a positive effect on product quality begins to
manifest. Beyond some threshold, however, a new phase starts in which product quality decreases with increasing
amounts of performance pressure. Finally, results show a lack of association between pressure for performance and
adherence to budget and schedule. All three stressors were found to have an indirect, rather than a direct, effect on
market success via job satisfaction, adherence to budget and schedule, or product quality. Several managerial implications follow from these results. First, product managers should make every effort to reduce role ambiguity to
minimal levels, ensuring that team members fully understand their role requirements and have adequate information
about their job. Second, rather than reducing the level of role conict to zero, managers must take into account the
positive effect that moderate levels of role conict have in product quality. Finally, management should put some
pressure on the team members and make sure they understand that there is a sense of urgency.
Introduction
ndividuals in society are subject to ever increasing levels of stress. One of the most important
sources of stress is the workplace. The study of
stress in work settings is not new. Research on the
effects of work stress on performance has a long tradition in organizational behavior, sales, and marketing (Bettencourt and Brown, 2003; Dubinsky,
Address correspondence to: Pilar Carbonell, School of Administrative Studies, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York
University, 4700 Keele St, Toronto ON, Canada M3J 1P3. E-mail:
pilarc@yorku.ca.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the nancial support from the
Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (SEJ2006-08854/ECON)
and of the Regional Agency of Science and Technology of the Murcia
Region-Foundation Seneca (08663/PHCS/08).
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Dr. Ana I. Rodr guez-Escudero is professor of marketing at the
University of Valladolid in Spain. In addition to several published
books and articles in some of the most recognized Spanish marketing academic journals, she has published articles in international
journals such as International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Marketing Letters, Journal of Business Research, and Industrial
Marketing Management. Her research interests include marketing
strategy and new product development.
Dr. Pilar Carbonell is associate professor of marketing at York
University in Canada. Her current research interests include customer involvement, managerial control systems, order of market
entry, and boundary-spanning management. Dr. Carbonells research has been published in international leading journals such as
Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business Research,
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, and Journal of Product Innovation
Management.
Dr. Jose L. Munuera-Aleman earned his Ph.D. from Universidad
Autonoma of Madrid and is professor of marketing at the University of Murcia in Spain. In 2002, he was a visiting professor at University of Texas in Austin. Currently he is president of the Spanish
Marketing Academic and Professional Society. He has published in
various journals including Journal of Business Research, Industrial
Marketing Management, Technovation, Marketing Letters, Journal
of Advertising, European Journal of Marketing, and International
Journal of Market Research.
857
Work stressors
Role ambiguity
Role conflict
Team job
satisfaction
Pressure for
performance
858
859
Methodology
Sample and Data Collection
The initial sampling frame included 1,403 Spanish innovative rms operating in different sectors: consumer goods, chemical products, machinery and
transport devices, and electric and electronic machinery. Data were collected through a Web-based
questionnaire sent to the senior executive in charge
of NPD at each company. Before collecting the data,
the questionnaire was pretested with six managers and
six academics. Reminder e-mails and phone calls were
sent to all nonrespondents two weeks after the initial
contact. A total of 197 complete questionnaires were
received, yielding an effective response rate of 14%.
Although this response rate is not as high as one might
wish, it is comparable to those of other studies on new
product development. Of note, although extensive evidence details lower costs and faster response times for
online surveys than for mail surveys (e.g., Dillman,
2000; Illieva, Baron, and Healy, 2002), Web-based surveys offer no clear advantages over mail surveys in
terms of response rate (Olsen, 2009).
To test for nonresponse bias, early and late respondents were compared on all the variables of
interest and on their rm size (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). No signicant differences were found at
p o .05. Sample representativeness was also checked.
The analyses revealed no signicant differences between the present studys sample and the population it
was drawn from in terms of industry distribution,
employee number, and company sales. Table 1 shows
the sample characteristics.
The unit of analysis was the new product project.
Respondents were asked to base their answers on a
new product project representative of the rm that
860
Number of
Employees
% of Sampled
Firms
Sales Volume
(mill.h)
% of Sampled
Firms
14.2
27.9
28.9
28.9
o50
51150
151250
251500
4n500
No response
o6
618
1830
3060
460
No response
Total
197
20.3
25.4
18.8
19.8
13.7
2.0
197
13.7
20.8
11.2
21.8
21.3
11.2
197
Measures
A pool of items was generated for measuring each of
the constructs using literature and interviews with
practitioners. Role ambiguity and role conict were
measured with four and six items, respectively,
adapted from Rizzo et al. (1970). Pressure for performance was operationalized with four items from
Akgun et al. (2006). The team job satisfaction scale
measured satisfaction with regard to recognition, responsibilities, supervision, and opportunities (Sarin
and Mahajan, 2001). Adherence to budget and schedule and market success were measured with six and
ve items, respectively, from Sarin and Mahajan.
Product quality was measured using eight items
adapted from Garvin (1987).
Project complexity and industry dynamism were
included as control variables because of prior work
suggesting a relationship between these variables and
adherence to budget and schedule, product quality,
and new product performance (Akgun et al., 2007;
Calantone, Garcia, and Droge, 2003). Project complexity refers to the degree to which the development
process was complicated and difcult. Industry dyn-
861
Role Ambiguity
(a 5 .93, CR 5 .98, AVE 5 .75)
Role Conict
(a 5 .92, CR 5 .91, AVE 5 .67)
Job satisfaction
(a 5 .91, CR 5 .91, AVE 5 .73)
Construct Measurement
Team members were uncertain about how much authority they had (R).
Team members were unclear of what had to be done (R).
Team members do not know what their responsibilities were (R).
Team members do not know exactly what was expected of them (R).
During the development process, conict arose because team members:
Had to buck rules or policies in order to carry out their job/tasks.
Worked on unnecessary things.
Worked under conicting directives or orders.
Received tasks that were outside their training and capabilities.
Received tasks without adequate resources and materials to execute them.
Team members had to do things that should have been done differently.
The team felt great pressure from companys executives to succeed on this project.
The team felt great pressure to launch this product successfully.
The team felt great pressure from the environment (distributors, competitors,
customers) to develop this product quickly.
The team felt their jobs could be in jeopardy if this project failed.
Team members were satised with:
The recognition they got for their work on the project.
The amount of responsibility given during the project.
The way the team was managed.
The opportunities given to use their knowledge and capabilities.
The team made efcient use of its time.
The team did a good job of meeting all of its schedule deadlines.
The new product was launched on time.
The team operated in a cost-efcient manner.
The team did a good job adhering to its budget.
The teams project is within budget.
The product is more reliable than competing products available to the customer.
The products performance meets our expectations.
The products quality exceeds our expectations.
This product delivers benets to the customers that are not currently available
The product has an excellent post-purchase service.
This product is superior to competing products available to the customer.
Our clients are very satised with this product.
This product offers an important competitive advantage.
Met sales expectations.
Met sales growth expectations.
Met market share expectations.
Met prot expectations.
Met return on investments expectations.
The product developed by our team was technically complex to develop.
Our team had to use non routine technology to develop the product.
The development process was relatively complex.
The product developed by our team was complex.
When the new product was launched, the environment was characterized by:
Very frequent changes in the mix of products/brands available.
Very frequent changes in the sales strategies.
Very frequent changes in product/technology standards
Very frequent changes in customer preferences.
Very frequent changes in the number of competitors.
Mean (S.D.)
2.49
2.35
2.38
2.47
(1.31)
(1.25)
(1.22)
(1.30)
2.81
3.34
3.08
2.85
3.40
3.30
5.04
5.27
4.74
(1.60)
(1.77)
(1.82)
(1.76)
(1.83)
(1.82)
(1.63)
(1.49)
(1.72)
5.04 (1.52)
4.59
5.02
4.94
5.19
4.74
4.31
4.39
4.73
4.58
4.84
5.39
5.90
5.55
5.26
4.98
5.52
5.74
5.46
4.75
4.76
4.62
4.71
4.70
4.50
3.96
4.45
4.27
3.68
3.78
3.97
4.09
3.98
(1.53)
(1.33)
(1.29)
(1.29)
(1.42)
(1.63)
(1.76)
(1.46)
(1.53)
(1.42)
(1.25)
(0.96)
(1.36)
(1.32)
(1.37)
(1.25)
(1.10)
(1.24)
(1.48)
(1.53)
(1.54)
(1.40)
(1.45)
(1.48)
(1.54)
(1.41)
(1.53)
(1.81)
(1.66)
(1.80)
(1.73)
(1.74)
a
Seven-point Likert-type scales (1 5 strongly disagree to 7 5 strongly agree). a 5 Cronbachs alpha. CR, composite reliability. AVE, average variance extracted. R, reverse-scored item.
862
Role ambiguity
Role conict
Pressure for performance
Team satisfaction
Adherence to budget schedule
Product quality
Market success
Project complexity
Industry dynamism
2.42
3.09
5.05
4.94
4.56
5.50
4.74
4.30
3.91
(1.15)
(1.45)
(1.24)
(1.21)
(1.19)
(0.89)
(1.33)
(1.29)
(1.36)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0.34
0.18
0.74
0.50
0.47
0.42
0.17
0.13
0.34
0.37
0.32
0.17
0.13
0.20
0.11
0.09
0.05
0.23
0.23
0.34
0.14
0.55
0.48
0.45
0.16
0.20
0.30
0.46
0.07
0.15
0.49
0.29
0.16
0.30
0.18
0.19
Procedural remedies were addressed by protecting respondent anonymity, reducing evaluation apprehension, improving item wording, and separating the
measurement of the predictor and criterion variables.
Further, the following statistical remedies were applied. First, the Harmans one-factor test was conducted (ibid.). In this test, evidence for CMV exists
when a single factor emerges from the analysis or
when one general factor accounts for the majority of
the covariance in the independent and dependent variables. This analysis produced nine factors, with the
rst factor accounting for only 26.9% of the total
variance explained (73.3%). Second, a conrmatory
factoranalytic approach to Harmans single-factor
test was performed. A worse t for the one-factor
model compared with the measurement model suggests that common method variance does not pose a
serious threat. The CFA yielded a w2 5 5121.6 with
989 degrees of freedom, comparative t index
(CFI) 5 .34, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 5 .14 (compared with the
w2 5 1925.0 with 953 degrees of freedom, CFI 5 .84,
and RMSEA 5 .07 for the measurement model).
Although simple and straightforward, Harmans
single-factor test has limitations, most signicantly its
well-known insufcient sensitivity to detect moderate
or small levels of CMV effects (Malhotra, Kim, and
Patil, 2006). To address this problem, Lindell and
Whitneys (2001) marker variable technique was employed. Essentially, this technique requires researchers to identify a marker variable that should be
theoretically unrelated to at least one of the other
variables in the model. Because the marker variable is
assumed to have no relationship with one or more
variables in the study, CMV can be assessed based on
the correlation between the marker variable and the
theoretically unrelated variables (Malhotra et al.).
Such a correlation (rM) is treated as an indicator of
Results
Model Estimation
Covariance-based path analysis with maximum likelihood estimation (AMOS 7.0) is used to test the model
shown in Figure 1. According to Mardias (1970) multivariate kurtosis statistic, the assumption of multivariate
normality is not rigorously met, making it recommendable to apply a bootstrap resampling procedure to calculate condence intervals and signicance levels for
the parameter estimates (Yung and Bentler, 1996).
Furthermore, extant research demonstrates that bootstrapping outperforms traditional approaches for testing mediation (Shrout and Bolger, 2002). In this study,
all reported signicance levels are based on bias-corrected bootstrap condence intervals.
Quadratic terms of team stressors were included in
the model to test for curvilinear relationships. Multicollinearity is an endemic problem in regression models that simultaneously contain linear and squared
terms of the same variables. To minimize this problem, role ambiguity, role conict, and pressure for
Results
Path estimates are shown in Table 4. The model
explained 49%, 34%, 27%, and 37%, respectively,
of the variance in job satisfaction, adherence to budget and schedule, product quality, and market success.
Data in Table 4 support H1 and H2, which predicted a negative association between role ambiguity
and job satisfaction (b 5 0.63, po.01) and between
role conict and job satisfaction (b 5 0.16, po.01).
Results, however, show a nonsignicant effect of pressure for performance on job satisfaction. H3 is thus
rejected. Literature has argued that role ambiguity has
a stronger negative effect on job satisfaction than role
conict (Baroudi, 1985; Gilboa et al., 2008). To test
this proposition, the following paths were compared:
role ambiguity ! job satisfaction and role conict ! job satisfaction. The comparison was conducted as a chi-square difference test, where the
compared paths were constrained to be equal in one
nested model but were freely estimated in another.
Results from the chi-square difference test indicated
that the negative effect of role ambiguity on job
satisfaction was stronger than that of role conict
(dif w2 5 30.37, DF 5 1, po.01).
The results reject H4a, H4b, and H4c contending
an inverted U-shaped relationship between role ambiguity and new product performance outcomes.
Instead, role ambiguity has a direct U-shaped effect
on adherence to budget schedule (b 5 .28, po.01
linear term; b 5 .14, po.05 curvilinear term) and
product quality (b 5 .24, po.01 linear term;
b 5 .14, po.05 curvilinear term), and an indirect Ushaped effect on market success (b 5 .34, po.01
863
0.63
0.16
0.02
0.28
0.14
0.24
0.14
0.03
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.04
0.11
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.18
0.15
0.05
0.08
0.33
0.27
0.10
0.31
0.30
0.01
0.15
0.14
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.49
0.34
0.27
0.37
864
Performance
D
and schedule and product quality is positive and signicant (b 5 .33, po.01, b 5 .27, po.01). Results fail
to support H7c, which contended a signicant direct
effect of job satisfaction on market success. In contrast, a signicant indirect positive effect was found
through product quality, and adherence to budget
and schedule (b 5 .18, po.01).
Discussion
Stressors
The topic of job stressors and its impact on performance has received limited empirical attention in the
NPD eld. The present study draws from previous literature on stress and NPD to examine the impact of
three job stressors (i.e., role ambiguity, role conict,
and pressure for performance) on team job satisfaction
and three dimensions of new product performance: adherence to budget and schedule, product quality, and
market success. In particular, linear and curvilinear
effects of job stressors on job satisfaction and new
product performance, respectively, are examined.
865
Managerial Implications
A number of important managerial implications follow from these results. First, ndings from this study
point out that role ambiguity has a stronger negative
effect on job satisfaction than role conict. Nonetheless, in comparison with role conict, role ambiguity is
more amenable to managerial intervention; that is,
866
product projects. Second, a single key informant provided the data in each company. While it is not this
studys intention to minimize the potential problems
of common method variance derived from using a
single informant, results from the tests realized in the
methodology section suggest that this bias is not a
major problem in the sample. Nevertheless, different
key informants must provide the data for independent
and dependent variables in future studies to avoid this
problem. Third, the response rate is relatively low.
Still, there are some reasons to believe that the response rate did not jeopardize the representativeness
of the sample. Thus, Armstrong and Overtons (1977)
test provided some indication of the absence of nonresponse error and the sample was representative of
the population in terms of industry sectors and company size. Finally, Rizzo et al.s (1970) role ambiguity
and role conict scale, which have dominated the literature about role stressors, could have problems with
content validity (King and King, 1990). Replications
of this work using scales that consider the multidimensional aspects of team stressors (e.g., Singh and
Rhoads, 1991) are needed.
Apart from the necessary improvements in the
measurement process, several lines of future research
can be suggested. First, previous research has distinguished between affective and functional conict
(Menguc and Auh, 2008). Accounting for different
types of conict could help explain more effectively
the effect of team conict on job satisfaction and new
product performance. Second, the empirical study
was conducted in one cultural setting (Spain). However, results from Peterson et al. (1995) reveal that
managers from high-power-distance and low-individualism countries report lower levels of role ambiguity than managers from low-power-distance and
high-individualism countries. Therefore, to ensure
generalizability of these ndings beyond the Spanish
context, additional research is needed in countries
with different levels of power-distance and individualism. Third, given that stress affects teams as well as
individuals, a multilevel analysis by using hierarchical
lineal modeling can be adequate. For example, role
conict, pressure for performance, and role ambiguity
can be assessed as individual-level factors and satisfaction and performance as group-level factors. Finally, future research could explore the moderating
effect of teams autonomy and empowerment on the
relationship between work stressors and team satisfaction. Employees who have an opportunity to participate in setting goals and the procedures for
achieving them may have higher levels of job satisfaction and exhibit lower role ambiguity and role conict than those employees denied such thing (Thomas
and Velthouse, 1990).
References
Akgun, A.E., Byrne, J.C., Lynn, G.S., and Keskin, H. (2007). Team
Stressors, Management Support, and Project and Process Outcomes
in New Product Development Projects. Technovation 27:628639.
Akgun, A.E., Lynn, G.S., and Byrne, J.C. (2006). Antecedents and
Consequences of Unlearning in New Product Development Teams.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 23:7388.
Amabile, T., Hadley, C.N., and Kramer, S.J. (2002). Creativity under
the Gun. Harvard Business Review 80(8):5261.
Amason, A.C. (1996). Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and
Dysfunctional Conict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a
Paradox for Top Management Teams. Academy of Management
Journal 39(1):123148.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3):441423.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977). Estimating Nonresponse
Bias in Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14(3):396402.
Babakus, E., Cravens, D.W., Johnston, M., and Moncrief, W. (1999).
The Role of Emotional Exhaustion in Sales Force Attitude and
Behavior Relationships. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science
27:5870.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural
Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
16(1):7494.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., and Phillips, L.W. (1991). Assessing Construct
Validity in Organizational Research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36:421458.
Barczak, G. and Wilemon, D. (2003). Team Member Experience in
New Product Development: Views from the Trenches. R&D Management 33:463479.
867
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., and Buchner, A. (2007). G Power
3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social,
Behavioral and Biomedical Science. Behavioral Research Methods
39(2):175191.
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight6Foresight: the Effect of Outcome
Knowledge on Judgment under Uncertainty. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
1:288299.
Fisher, C.D. (2003). Why Do Lay People Believe That Satisfaction and
Performance Are Correlated? Possible Source of a Commonsense
Theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24:753777.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation
Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.
Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):3950.
Garvin, D.A. (1987). Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality.
Harvard Business Review 65(6):101110.
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., and Cooper, C. (2008). A MetaAnalysis of Work Demand Stressors and Job Performance: Examining Main and Moderating Effects. Personnel Psychology
61(2):227272.
Grant, K., Cravens, D.W., Low, G.S., and Moncrief, W.C. (2001). The
Role of Satisfaction with Territory Design on the Motivation, Attitudes, and Work Outcomes of Salespeople. Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science 29(2):165178.
Grayson, K. (2007). Friendship versus Business in Marketing Relationship. Journal of Marketing 71(4):121139.
Illieva, J., Baron, S., and Healy, N.M. (2002). Online Surveys in Marketing Research: Pros and Cons. International Journal of Market
Research 44(3):361382.
Jaccard, J., Wan, C.K., and Turrisi, R. (1990). The Detection and Interpretation of Interaction Effects between Continuous Variables in
Multiple Regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research 25:467478
(October).
Jehn, K.A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination of the Benets and
Detriments of Intragroup Conict. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2):256282.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E., and Patton, G.K. (2001). The
Job SatisfactionJob Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and
Quantitative Review. Psychological Bulletin 127:376407.
Kim, J. and Wilemon, D. (2001). Managing Stress in Product Development Projects. In: Management of Technology: The Key to Prosperity in the Third Millennium, ed. T.M. Khalil, L.A. Lefebvre, and
R.M. Mason. Oxford: Elsevier Science, 381395.
Bettencourt, L.A. and Brown, S.W. (2003). Role Stressors and Customer-Oriented Boundary-Spanning Behaviors in Service Organizations. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 31(4):394408.
King, L.A. and King, D.W. (1990). Role Conict and Role Ambiguity:
A Critical Assessment of Construct Validity. Psychological Bulletin
107(1):4864.
Bhagat, R.S. (1982). Conditions under which Stronger Job PerformanceJob Satisfaction Relationships May Be Observed: A Closer
Look at Two Situational Contingencies. Academy of Management
Journal 25:772789.
Boles, J.S. and Babin, B.J. (1996). On the Front Lines: Stress, Conict,
and the Customer Service Provider. Journal of Business Research
37:4150.
Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys. The Tailored Design
Method. New York: Wiley.
868
Olsen, S.B. (2009). Choosing between Internet and Mail Survey Modes
for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-market Goods.
Environmental and Resource Economics 44(4):591610.
Onyemah, V. (2008). Role Ambiguity, Role Conict, and Performance:
Empirical Evidence of an Inverted-U Relationship. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 28(3):299313.
Singh, J., Goolsby, J.R., and Rhoads, G. (1994). Behavioral and Psychological Consequences of Boundary Spanning Burnout for
Customer Service Representatives. Journal of Marketing Research
31(4):558570.
Peterson, M.F., Smith, P.B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S.,
and Callan, V. (1995). Role Conict, Ambiguity and Overload: A
21-Nation Study. Academy of Management Journal 38:429445.
Song, M., Dyer, B., and Thieme, R.J. (2006). Conict Management
and Innovation Performance: An Integrated Contingency Perspective. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 34(3):341356.
Ping Jr., R.A. (1996). Latent Variable Interaction and Quadratic Effect
Estimation: A Two-Step Technique Using Structural Equation
Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 119(1):166175.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, J.O.
(2003). Common Method Bias in Behavioral Research: A Critical
Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology 88(5):879903.
Strutton, D., Pelton, L.E., and Lumpkin, J.R. (1993). The Relationship
between Psychological Climate and Salesperson-Sales Manager
Trust in Sales Organizations. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management 13(4):114.
Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., and Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role Conict and
Ambiguity in Complex Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly 15:15163 (June).
Sarin, S. and Mahajan, V. (2001). The Effect of Reward Structures on
the Performance of Cross-Functional Product Development
Teams. Journal of Marketing 65(2):3553.
Schaubroeck, J. and Ganster, D. (1993). Chronic Demands and Responsivity of Challenge. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1):7385.
Scott, W.E. (1966). Activation Theory and Task Design. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1:330.
Selladurai, R. (1991). Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship. American Business Review 9(1):1621 (January).
Selye, H. (1950). The Philosophy and Pathology of Exposure to Stress: A
Treatise Based on the Concepts of the General-Adaptation-Syndrome
and the Diseases of Adaptation. Montreal: ACTA.
Shrout, P.E. and Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in Experimental and
Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations.
Psychological Methods 7:422445.
Singh, J. (1993). Boundary Role Ambiguity: Facets, Determinants, and
Impacts. Journal of Marketing 57(2):1131.
Singh, J. (1998). Striking a Balance in Boundary-Spanning Positions:
An Investigation of Some Unconventional Inuences of Role