Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
The purpose of this paper is to report on new to modern organizations, they have been
the development of a questionnaire consist- subjected to empirical testing in only a small
ing of factorially independent scales de- number of situations.
signed to measure role conflict and ambiguity According to the chain-of-command prin-
in complex organizations. ciple, organizations set up on the basis of
The questionnaire was developed for use hierarchical relationships with a clear and
as part of a broader survey to identify man- single flow of authority from the top to the
agement development needs and barriers for bottom should be more satisfying to mem-
the effective implementation of a planned bers and should result in more effective eco-
management-development program in a large nomic performance and goal achievement
manufacturing company (House, 1967: ch. 4 than organizations set up without such an
and appendix I; House, 1968). Question- authority flow. Theoretically, such a single
naires were developed and administered to chain of command not only provides top
two samples of employees to measure em- management with more effective control and
ployee need satisfaction, job-induced anxiety, coordination, but is also desirable because
leader behavior, organizational and manage- it is consistent with the principle of unity of
ment practices, and role conflict and ambi- command.
guity. This paper reports a construct valida- The principle of unity of command states
tion of scales designed to measure role that for any action an employee should re-
conflict and ambiguity against demographic ceive orders from one superior only, and that
data and other variables measured as part of there should be only one leader and one plan
the survey. for a group of activities having the same ob-
jective. The essence of this principle is that
PREVIOUS LITERATURE ON ROLE the structure of an organization should keep
CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY a member from being caught in the crossfire
of incompatible orders or incompatible ex-
Theory
pectations from more than one superior. A
In classical organization theory the prin- corollary principle advanced by a more re-
ciple of chain of command and the principle cent classical theorist (Davis, 1951) is the
of unity of command and direction have im- principle of single accountability, which
plications for role conflict in complex organi- states that a person should be accountable
zations. Even though these principles are not for the successful execution of his tasks to
150
tional practices on individual and organiza- sender conflict. Gross et al. (1958) used
tional outcomes. However, it is also clear intrarole and interrole conflict with em-
that little is known about the relationship phasis on exposure to incompatible expecta-
between these concepts or among their tions and on the perceiver of the incom-
theoretical components, and that the re- patibility, i.e., focal person or observer.
search cited used varied measures and Definitions of these role conflict components,
methods and very often did not systemati- as used in the present scale are given below.
cally relate these concepts to other variables Incompatibility or incongruency may re-
in a complex organizational setting. This sult in various kinds of conflict:
study is addressed to the development and 1. Conflict between the focal person's in-
validation of these two role constructs against ternal standards or values and the defined
measures of organizational and management role behavior (items 3, 5, 27, 29). This is a
practices, leadership behavior, satisfaction, person-role conflict or intrarole conflict of
anxiety, propensity to leave, and demo- the focal person as he fills a single position
graphic variables. or role.
2. Conflict between the time, resources,
DEFINITIONS AND QUESTIONNAIRE or capabilities of the focal person and de-
DEVELOPMENT fined role behavior (items 1, 11, 15, 17, 25).
Where one other person in a related role
The questionnaire developed consisted of generates the incompatibility, this may be
30 items (Table 1), 15 of which dealt with viewed as intrasender conflict. It may also
role ambiguity (even numbers) and 15 with be organizationally generated. From the
role conflict (odd numbers). point of view of the focal person, there is
A role is most typically defined as a set of intrarole conflict or person-role conflict, e.g.,
expectations about behavior for a position in insufficient capability.
a social structure. Expectations define behav- 3. Conflict between several roles for the
ioral requirements or limits ascribed to the same person which require different or in-
role by the focal person filling that position, compatible behaviors, or changes in behav-
or by others who relate to the role or simply ior as a function of the situation (items 7
have notions about it. The expectations are and 19); i.e. role overload. This is interrole
conditioned by general experience and conflict for the focal person as he fills more
knowledge, values, perceptions, and specific than one position in the role system.
experience with focal person(s). They serve 4. Conflicting expectations and organiza-
as standards for evaluating the worth or tional demands in the form of incompatible
appropriateness of behavior, and they tend policies (items 9 and 13), conflicting re-
to condition or determine such behavior. quests from others (item 21), and incom-
Role concepts such as the following are patible standards of evaluation (item 23).
found in the literature: (1) role sets or These role conflict items suggest sanctions
systems-set(s) of roles in a social structure; attached to role behavior and are therefore
(2) role sector(s) or sent role(s)-subset(s) related to the role ambiguity components
of expectations from counter position(s) in which involve the prediction of the outcome
the role structure; (3) role ambiguity or of one's behavior. Also, the items may reflect
clarity; and (4) role conflict. more than the category cited. Finally, the
sources of conflict cited in the literature-
Role Conflict multiple authority, professional values-are
Role conflict is defined in terms of the for the most part not specifically included in
dimensions of congruency-incongruency or the items.
compatibility-incompatibility in the require- Role Ambiguity
ments of the role, where congruency or
compatibility is judged relative to a set of Role ambiguity is not elaborately defined
standards or conditions which impinge upon in the literature. The definition used here is
role performance. Kahn et al. (1964) used in terms of (1) the predictability of the out-
such concepts as person-role conflict, inter- come or responses to one's behavior (items
role conflict, intersender conflict, and intra- 8, 16, 24, 30), and (2) the existence or clarity
Factor
loadings
.30
Item Role Role
number Statement conflict ambiguity
1. I have enough time to complete my work.
2. I feel certain about how much authority I have. .51
3. I perform tasks that are too easy or boring.
4. Clear, planned goals and objectives for my job. .42
5. I have to do things that should be done differently. .60
6. Lack of policies and guidelines to help me. .43
7. I am able to act the same regardless of the group I am with. .31
8. I am corrected or rewarded when I really don't expect it.
9. I work under incompatible policies and guidelines. .60
10. I know that I have divided my time properly. .62
11. I receive an assignment without the manpower to complete it. .56
12. I know what my responsibilities are. .61
13. I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment. .54
14. I have to "feel my way" in performing my duties. .36 -.35
15. I receive assignmentsthat are within my training and capability.
16. I feel certain how I will be evaluated for a raise or promotion. .34
17. I have just the right amount of work to do. .32
18. I know that I have divided my time properly. .59
19. I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently. .43
20. I know exactly what is expected of me. - .61
21. I receive incompatible requests from two or more people. .56
22. I am uncertain as to how my job is linked.
23. I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not
accepted by others. .41
24. I am told how well I am doing my job.
25. I receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials
to execute it. .52
26. Explanation is clear of what has to be done. .35
27. I work on unnecessary things. .52
28. I have to work under vague directives or orders. .59
29. I perform work that suits my values. .39
30. I do not know if my work will be acceptable to my boss. .30
Items 10 and 18 on this administrationwere identical, owing to a clerical error.
of behavioral requirements, often in terms which the condition existed for him, on a
of inputs from the environment, which seven-point scale ranging from very false to
would serve to guide behavior and provide very true.
knowledge that the behavior is appropriate
Other Variables
(the remaining even-numbered items).
Therefore, the items reflect certainty about For the purpose of relating the derived
duties, authority, allocation of time, and role measures to other measures, the role
relationships with others; the clarity or measures were correlated with 45 variables
existence of guides, directives, policies; and included in the study. A complete list of
the ability to predict sanctions as outcomes these variables, including the number of
of behavior. items in each, means, standard deviations,
reliabilities, and correlations appears in
METHOD Table 2. They fall into the following cate-
gories. The satisfaction, leadership, organi-
Role Questionnaire zation, and anxiety variables were derived in
Subjects were requested to respond to part from separate factor analyses of each
each role item, indicating the degree to set.
Satisfaction: the degree to which the satis- the company less than 10 years. The samples
faction condition described in the item is differed in two respects. Although 60 to 65
perceived to exist or be fulfilled (7-point percent of both samples were 3 to 5 levels
scale). from the top of the organization, sample A
Leadership: the frequency with which the included 30 corporate staff employees nearer
respondent perceives his boss engaging in the top, while sample B contained a slightly
given behaviors (Ohio State University higher percentage of respondents at 6 to 7
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, levels from the top. Also members of sample
5-point scale). B were slightly better educated, with 80 per-
Organization: the degree of which certain cent having bachelor's and master's degrees
organizational or management practices are compared to 67 percent in sample A.
perceived to exist (7-point scale).
Anxiety: true-false description of existence Administration
of physical symptoms, feelings of pressure or The variables analyzed were all derived
stress, both general and job induced. (Part from a single combined instrument of ap-
of the items were drawn from the Taylor proximately 350 items. The instrument was
Manifest Anxiety Scale). administered to groups ranging from 10 to
Demographic: age, education, tenure, 50. Anonymity was assured and participation
organization level. was voluntary; only 5 percent of the drawn
Propensity to leave: the plans for and con- sample did not complete the questionnaire.
ditions under which the respondent would Administration time took between one and
leave the organization, each ranging from a half and two hours.
low to high propensity to leave.
RESULTS
Sample
Factor Analysis
The questionnaire was administered to a
35 percent random sample of the central The responses to the role questionnaire
offices and main plant of the firm and to a items were factor analyzed using an image
100 percent sample of the research and covariance method and rotated using a
engineering division. All respondents were varimax criterion (Kaiser, 1958a, 1958b) in
salaried managerial and technical employees, order to test relationships and structural re-
excluding salesmen, first level foremen, and lationships of the role conflict and ambiguity
clerical personnel. The total number of re- definitions. Table 3 presents item means,
spondents were treated as two samples. standard deviations, and the unrotated and
Sample A (N = 199) represents a 35 per- rotated factor structures. Two factors were
cent sample of central office and main plant extracted which account for 56 percent of
personnel plus 35 percent of the respondents, the common variance of the 30-item set.
the total universe, of the research and en- Factor I was named role conflict because
gineering division. Thus sample A consists it primarily reflected items drawn from the
of a 35 percent random sample of salaried role conflict definition. Items loading .30, or
employees of the total organization with ex- greater are shown in Table 1. Of the 15 role
ceptions previously noted. Sample B (N = conflict items, 9 are represented with load-
91) represents the remaining 65 percent of ings greater than or equal to .30. Among the
the research and engineering personnel who remaining 6 items, 3 items (7, 15, 29) loaded
completed the questionnaire but were not primarily on factor II, role ambiguity, 2
randomly placed in sample A. The samples items (1, 17) were complex lower-loading
were divided in the above manner to permit items, and one item (3) loaded in the ex-
a representative sampling of the entire firm pected direction but with a low magnitude.
and to permit maximum sampling of the re- Five of these 6 items were from that part of
search and engineering division. Approx- the role conflict definition representing
imately 70 percent of both samples were be- person-role or intrasender conflict. Four role
tween the ages of 25-50 years; 93 percent ambiguity items loaded on this factor (6, 14,
were married; and 65-70 percent were with 28, 30). They are drawn from both parts of
I I. I II I
z 'r CY )fm I n C
COc C~1O~cO~
Z n CZ
C q c ' l ' ci
.y ? I Ca COCOCa t t CO
2 C1
q0 t-I I IJ
II1 I cq
1I111
i cTh ' ctCOC
Co c o Cc ' Gq -4
1111
C'
2 .
Y
>~~~~~~
gq~~~~~~~~~0 C C 00
C0 C CO O ) t-~0
S ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~
Io 00
. . . .
10 01 o 0 t-
. . .
t-
.
t-
. .
co
.
O
. .
o
.
t-
.
co
.
00F
. . . .
I-
.
Co
.
00
.
Co
.
z )Cz
Co a z ' tC co o --o 00o z to 't o b t- t o -- coo CO
h~~~~~~~~~~~~~r- O 00 d rCO
cq O-- C C- H o'SbOt
t- ~o scsoO b
o ~~~~~~~~q ~r c >
~ .
co
. .o
o to
-' co~- coacIt00coo
o ~ ~
-.Y~)~ ci
PQ ?q
o
o 0 't 01 Gq r-- 't om m m 0 co It CD 0 C0 ~o m o Ci C0 Gq o1
x %F~~~OC
4 ZH
C6 tHC
fZOO)fO
16i H,
bO-%CZLCL
C6 C6 t C4 C6 C C6 C6 C6 4o
cZICFCOO
HC C6 o C6o C6
1n
o co t - t 0 cocot- 'tc coct t-cocc t
Gn Q t ? c~lo coH,- cl co G-q ,-'o cs cs 't co)f > co s cs co \-< co 'to0 t- 5Col
O2 .= s
0 Cd~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
C)
X t cO t t t If) t t t cO cO t ca cOcdcO cO t Oc
~~~~~~~ .~ .~ .~ .0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . cO~~C4 ttcd
s
U ;
0 f7 ? > Z s % n % t m t m t b C ~~~~~~~~~~~~
%~0 nt>
nt>
Z r
C 0
H A C) I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
6 6 'cc i - P
cd
t~~~~~~~~~c .^ to lc
8v
t8
?~~~~~~~~~~-1~
t1S a8E?g=8U=aX
>=;, d
cd
c
=tJ-
; ? Hca
H t' g g g X Q ' g X So
CXcompmcssoos4
0
< H ~~
0 gS
g~~~~~~~~ .-
.HraotH H co
? cdrocco
id m s
Cd H H H H O H Ci C CJ Ci iCi
.,.q0
4ct
000000000 0 0 m 00 00 m C
V )i O IC OI OO I
QJ m ~~~~~~t-
0 o oo m m 0 It Itdi co r-b Hbdqd
Ocd
4- Xl0 001
ooCos O st- oom 0coH r-q Ci9OmCo C
q 1 0 -t 1m 0 CA q cq C co q m co
CQ~~~~~~O o o ~o
Z o Lcq - 0 cODt C _q
ncco0 _q _q I It co 10 - It _q
S~~~~
So ON
4 cj m~co co0 It 01c
4-
c co 't 'tcOi I~'~~0
?-cttt 0 9 qd d q X 0S q
cc- *4 -0
4 1 0 booo C.,
0 cd 0 N O0
.~~~
a)Acri0 00
> 0 04-5H O
u
& cd 0 6b' O6 0 6oco:t-0
w 0 0 Ccd0 CZ C
TABLE 3. FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY ITEMS, FOR SAMPLE A
Factor loadings
Unrotated Rotated
Standard Role Role Role Role
Item Mean deviation conflict ambiguity conflict ambiguity
1 3.85 1.81 -.33 .08 -.21 .26
2 4.00 1.80 -.49 .27 -.22 .51*
3 4.00 1.88 .08 .18 .17 .09
4 3.95 1.70 -.30 .30 -.05 .42*
5 4.19 1.80 .54 .29 .60* -.10
6 4.12 1.80 .49 .07 .43 -.24
7 4.46 1.72 -.19 .24 .00 .31
8 2.87 1.61 .13 .17 .21 .06
9 3.60 1.93 .53 .29 .60 -.10
10 4.16 1.48 -.27 .57 .14 .62*
11 4.50 2.04 .44 .34 .56* .00
12 5.05 1.60 -.49 .39 -.16 .61*
13 3.66 1.98 .43 .33 .54* .00
14 4.33 1.92 .50 -.05 .36 -.35
15 5.90 1.14 -.19 .18 -.04 .26
16 4.05 1.88 -.17 .29 .05 .34
17 3.01 1.63 -.35 .13 -.20 .32
18 3.96 1.68 -.24 .56 .15 .59
19 4.70 2.06 .33 .28 .48* .02
20 4.20 1.67 -.53 .36 -.20 .61*
21 3.88 2.04 .50 .28 .56* -.08
22 3.01 1.88 .33 .03 .28 -.17
23 4.35 1.89 .44 .11 .41* -.18
24 3.66 1.76 -.23 .14 -.09 .25
25 4.24 1.82 .45 .26 .52* -.07
26 3.92 1.58 -.38 .15 -.21 .35*
27 3.66 1.88 .53 .17 .52* -.19
28 3.76 1.77 .61 .19 .59 -.22
29 4.52 1.58 -.25 .29 -.02 .39
30 3.32 1.69 .38 .00 .30 -.23
Items 10 and 18 were identical; only item 10 was scored.
* Items used in scoring factors.
the ambiguity definition (predictability of (24) loaded in the expected manner, but
sanctions and external inputs). This factor with a low magnitude. Factor II accounts
accounts for 32 percent of the common for 26.3 percent of the common variance of
variance. the set.
Factor II was named role ambiguity be- The factor analysis revealed that the two
cause it reflected items drawn primarily from factors extracted strongly parallel the two
the same definition. Most items were in the theoretical concepts of role conflict and role
direction of role clarity. The sign of such ambiguity; therefore, the unexamined yet
items are reflected in scoring. Items loading often presumed separation of the two con-
greater than or equal to .30 are shown in structs seems warranted by this study. How-
Table 1. Of the 15 role ambiguity items, 9 ever, the specific definitional parts of these
are represented on this factor. Among the two concepts, as extracted from the liter-
remaining 6 items, 4 (6, 22, 24, 30) loaded ature and defined by the authors, did not
primarily on factor I, but might also be emerge as separate independent factors.
viewed as complex items with lower load-
ings (opposite sign) on factor I (item 14 Scale Development
was also complex): one item (8) loaded For purposes of developing scales, items
low, but primarily on factor I; and one item were selected for scoring on each factor
using several criteria. First, only items load-superiors that might be expected to have a
ing greater than or equal to .30 were con- less direct influence on subordinates, i.e.,
sidered. Second, complex items-those with representation of the group to outsiders, up-
relatively high loadings on both factors- ward aspiration, and persuasion, show the
were excluded in order to achieve greater weakest relationships with the role variables.
independence of scores. Third, items were On the other hand, behaviors indicative of
then subjected to reliability analysis (Kuder- more direct superior-subordinate relations
Richardson internal consistency reliabilities show stronger relationships. In these cases,
with Spearman-Brown corrections), using an role conflict and role ambiguity tend to be
interative technique which selected items lower under conditions in which superiors
contributing to the reliability of the final are described as more frequently engaging
sets for each scale. Items selected for scor- in emphasizing production under conditions
ing-marked with an asterisk in Table 3- of uncertainty, providing structure and
were summed for each respondent and standards, facilitating teamwork, tolerating
divided by the number of items in the set. freedom, and exerting upward influence.
Factor II items were reflected before scor- Tolerance of freedom by the superior did
ing (response of 7 changed to 1, 6 to 2, etc.).not increase role conflict or role ambiguity,
Reliabilities are reported in Table 2. nor was there a very strong correlation for
role abdication.
Correlations with Other Variables Both the leadership and the organization
Table 2 lists the scales, the number of practices tend to show higher correlations
items for each scale, means, standard de- in sample A than sample B, with no signifi-
viations, and reliabilities computed for all cant reversals in sign across samples. The
multiple item scales in the interative fashion specific organization practices which tend
described above. As with the role scales, to be associated with high role conflict and
means reflect the location on the 7-point, 5- role ambiguity are goal conflict and in-
point, and true-false response scales. Table consistency, delay in decisions, distortion
2 indicates the response made for each set and suppression of information, and viola-
of variables and lists the product-moment tions of the chain of command. The practices
correlations of the 45 variables with the which tend to be associated with lower role
role-conflict and role-ambiguity measures. conflict and role ambiguity are emphasis on
The intercorrelations between the role mea- personal development, formalization, ade-
sures was .25 (sample A) and .01 (sample quacy of communication, planning, horizon-
B), indicating relative independence. Table tal communication, top management recep-
2 also shows that the sign of the correlations tiveness to ideas, coordination of work flow,
between both role measures and other vari- adaptability to change, and adequacy of
ables is generally in the same direction, with authority.
the exception of variable 34. These patterns of relationships, taken to-
gether with those variables not highly re-
Among the satisfaction variables, there is
lated to the role variables, tend generally to
a clear tendency for higher correlations be-
fit with what one would predict from role
tween the role ambiguity measure and other
theory and previous research. However, var-
variables. The overall negative correlations
iable 34, in which increases in requests for
indicate lowered degrees of need fulfillment
information from superiors are associated
with increased role conflict and role am-
with increased role conflict but decreased
biguity. Need areas associated with work
role ambiguity, indicates that respondents
itself, the reward system, and the pleasant-
might have viewed such requests as clarify-
ness of the social environment appear sim-
ing expectations, but possibly conflict induc-
ilarly affected. Job security (variable 6),
ing. Furthermore, violations in chain of
generally high in this organization, (X = command (variable 35) which would ex-
4.97) showed the lowest relationship to the clude the immediate supervisor as an input
role measures. to the respondent is associated with in-
In the leadership variables the behavior of creased role conflict and role ambiguity.