Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations

Author(s): John R. Rizzo, Robert J. House and Sidney I. Lirtzman

Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Jun., 1970), pp. 150-163
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell
University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391486 .
Accessed: 03/11/2013 02:46
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

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

John R. Rizzo, Robert J. House, and Sidney 1. Lirtzman

Role Conflict and Ambiguity in

Complex Organizations
The literature indicates that dysfunctional individual and organizational consequences result from the existence of role conflict and role ambiguity in complex
organizations. Yet, systematic measurement and empirical testing of these role
constructs is lacking. This study describes the development and testing of questionnaire measures of role conflict and ambiguity. Analyses of responses of managers show these two constructs to be factorially identifiable and independent.
Derived measures of role conflict and ambiguity tend to correlate in two samples
in expected directions with measures of organizational and managerial practices
and leader behavior, and with member satisfaction, anxiety, and propensity to
leave the organization.
new to modern organizations, they have been
subjected to empirical testing in only a small
number of situations.
According to the chain-of-command principle, organizations set up on the basis of
hierarchical relationships with a clear and
single flow of authority from the top to the
bottom should be more satisfying to members and should result in more effective economic performance and goal achievement
than organizations set up without such an
authority flow. Theoretically, such a single
chain of command not only provides top
management with more effective control and
coordination, but is also desirable because
it is consistent with the principle of unity of
command.
The principle of unity of command states
that for any action an employee should receive orders from one superior only, and that
there should be only one leader and one plan
for a group of activities having the same objective. The essence of this principle is that
PREVIOUS LITERATURE ON ROLE
the structure of an organization should keep
a member from being caught in the crossfire
CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY
of incompatible orders or incompatible exTheory
pectations from more than one superior. A
In classical organization theory the prin- corollary principle advanced by a more reciple 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

The purpose of this paper is to report on

the development of a questionnaire consisting of factorially independent scales designed to measure role conflict and ambiguity
in complex organizations.
The questionnaire was developed for use
as part of a broader survey to identify management development needs and barriers for
the effective implementation of a planned
management-development program in a large
manufacturing company (House, 1967: ch. 4
and appendix I; House, 1968). Questionnaires were developed and administered to
two samples of employees to measure employee need satisfaction, job-induced anxiety,
leader behavior, organizational and management practices, and role conflict and ambiguity. This paper reports a construct validation of scales designed to measure role
conflict and ambiguity against demographic
data and other variables measured as part of
the survey.

150

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rizzo et al:

ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

one and only one superior. Such an arrangement is intended to ensure systematic and
consistent reporting, evaluation, and control
of the work of the subordinate. This prevents
the allocating of time and effort according
to individual preferences, rather than according to the demands of the task, or the directions of superiors. Subordinates cannot play
one superior against another, and thus prevent accurate evaluation of performance by
ambiguous or misleading reporting of performance and allocation of time.
Role theory states that, when the behaviors
expected of an individual are inconsistentone kind of role conflict-he will experience
stress, become dissatisfied, and perform less
effectively than if the expectations imposed
on him did not conflict. Role conflict can
therefore be seen as resulting from violation
of the two classical principles and causing
decreased individual satisfaction and decreased organizational effectiveness.
Both classical organization theory and role
theory deal with role ambiguity. According
to classical theory, every position in a formal
organizational structure should have a specified set of tasks or position responsibilities.
Such specification of duties, or formal definition of role requirements, is intended to
allow management to hold subordinates accountable for specific performance and to
provide guidance and direction for subordinates. If an employee does not know what
he has the authority to decide, what he is
expected to accomplish, and how he will be
judged, he will hesitate to make decisions
and will have to rely on a trial and error
approach in meeting the expectations of his
superior.
Role theory likewise states (Kahn et al.,
1964) that'role ambiguity-lack of the necessary information available to a given organizational position-will result in coping
behavior by the role incumbent, which may
take the form of attempts to solve the problem to avoid the sources of stress, or to use
defense mechanisms which distort the reality
of the situation. Thus, according to role
theory, ambiguity should increase the probability that a person will be dissatisfied with
his role, will experience anxiety, will distort
reality, and will thus perform less effectively.

151

Previous Research
Relation of unity of command to member
satisfaction and performance. Are organizations with a clear and single flow of authority from the top to the bottom less characterized by role conflict among their members
and more satisfying for their members; and
do such organizations enjoy more effective
and economic performance and goal achievement than organizations without a single
clear flow of authority? Although not much
research has been conducted to compare the
relative effectiveness of organizations that
violate the chain-of-command principle and
those that observe it, one can draw inferences from the experience of organizations
that have more than one flow of authority.
Professional organizations frequently exhibit violations of the chain-of-command
principle. As Blau and Scott (1962) pointed
out, two sources of authority exist when organizational discipline is based not only on
position power-supported by formal sanctions, and derived from the legal contract
governing employment of the organizational
member and the formal sanctions vested in
the superior's position-but also on professional expertise which is enforced by collegial authority. Several studies have shown
that (1) multiple authority disrupts the individual's orientation to his organization or
to his profession by requiring him to choose
between the two (Kaplan, 1959; Etzioni,
1959; La Porte, 1965; Evans, 1962; Reissman, 1949; Gouldner, 1958a; 1958b); (2)
individuals oriented primarily toward their
professional norms are more critical of the
organization and more likely to ignore administrative details (Blau and Scott, 1962);
and (3) professionals in such organizations
frequently experience stress as result of being caught in the middle (Kaplan, 1959; La
Porte, 1965; Evans, 1962).
These findings are reinforced by research
conducted in a completely different kind of
organization setting, namely hospitals. Concerning hospital hierarchies, Perrow (1965:
957) stated:
The differences between hospitals and most or.
ganizations are obvious, and a basic one that
researchershave focused upon is a system of
multiple authority or multiple subordination.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

152

ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

Specifically, the reference is to the administrative and medical hierarchies,with nurses as the
prime example of groups who are caught between the two lines of authority.Anothertheme,
again concerning the anomalousposition of the
doctor, is the way the doctor appearsto be both
a staff member (providing a specialized skill
that is required outside the organization) and a
member of the "line" (doing the productive effort). Finally, there is the anomalous position
of the doctor as a "guest"in the house, bringing
in his own patients and using the facilities but
not being a bona fide member of the organization in the usual sense of being reimbursedby
it and subject to its authority;yet also being a
member in that he exercises control, serves in
a bureaucraticrole, and to some degree has his
own interests tied to the interest of the hospital.
Such deviations from the Weberian (classical)
model of bureaucracy . . . . have fascinated
social scientists.

party organization and from workers' committees. Frank's study indicated that the
manager responded by (1) providing for
safety factors, (2) simulating the meeting
of standards, and (3) using personal influence to obtain favors and concessions.
Phelen (1960) used Frank's hypothesis
about ambiguity of goals and conflicting
standards in a historical analysis of the
Spanish colonial bureaucracy. He concluded
that his findings and Frank's suggested that
in the presence of multiple and conflicting
standards whose relative importance is undefined, subordinates must determine the
priority of accomplishment. They select those
standards most in accord with their own incentives and those most likely to be used by
superiors in evaluating them. Thus, multiple
standards allowed a wide range of discretion
to subordinates. Kahn et al. (1964) found
Zawacki (1963) found that role conflict re- that persons reporting role conflict stated
sults from the dual hierarchy of hospitals that their trust in the persons who imposed
and that those affected respond with hostility the pressure was reduced, they liked them
to physicians and passive resistance to formal less personally, they held them in lower esrules. Ben-David (1958) reported that phy- teem, they communicated less with them,
sicians who became members of a govern- and that their own effectiveness was dement public health insurance system felt creased.
dissatisfied, exploited, and experienced a loss
Woodward's (1965) findings were not enof professional independence because of con- tirely consistent with the findings reported
flict with the organization.
by others. She found consistent adherence
Thus, the evidence indicates that multiple to the principle of unity of command only
lines of authority are accompanied by role in large batch and mass production firms;
conflict and dissatisfaction for the members adherence to the principle was not widely
and loss of organizational efficiency and ef- practiced in firms with greater or less techfectiveness. However, these dysfunctions ap- nological complexity. Successful multiple
pear to be necessary concommitants and command was found only in technically adcosts of providing professional control over vanced process firms where the design or
the technical aspects of the organization's mechanism for the coordination of work is
activities.
intrinsic in the process itself. Furthermore
Do violations of the principle of unity of she found successful multiple-command recommand result more in role conflict and lationships in a case analysis of two organidecreased satisfaction for recipients of com- zations. In one, 30 supervisors-all of whom
mands and in decreased organizational ef-- had had experience working under a single
fectiveness? There are a few studies that superior at some time in their careers-reexamine applications or violations of the ported to and received direction from 5 exprinciple of unity of command. On the basis ecutives; yet 28 of them said that close
of case analysis, both Frank (1958) and association with the 5 supervisors meant that
Ditz (1959) found that the Communist fac- they knew everything that was going on in
tory manager was subject to performance the firm and any development contemplated.
expectations not only from the rational In the second firm, two-thirds of those interclaims of his functional role-the rule of his viewed said that on the whole they thought
superiors and the implicit rule of the market the organization worked well. First-hand ob-but also from the political hierarchy of the servation by Woodward's researchers led to

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rizzo et al:

ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

the same conclusion. No evidence was found

in either firm of incompatible or conflicting
instructions being given or of attempts being
made to play one superior against another
(Woodward, 1965:121-122):
It was clear that, in these two firms, joint accountability was not only the basis of organization, but was associated both with business
success and good interpersonal relationships.
Moreover,these were not the only two firms in
which joint accountabilitywas a workable concept. At a higher level there were two firmswith
joint managing directors. At an informal level
of organization,too, there were staff managers
in line-staff organizationswith so much power
that in practice their advice had the weight of
executive orders. The two extreme cases were
the firms with departmentalizedorganizationin
which a move toward divisionalizationwas not
under discussion.
Although the organizationalcharts drew a distinction between line roles and staff roles, the
status of the staff managers, and the way in
which they were used, implied that they were
jointly responsible with the line managers for
end results. This showed itself in the way interdepartmental memorandawere routed and addressed, and in the compositionof the different
management and policy committees. One of
these firms was a process production firm. It
seems that in some circumstances people can
work quite happily under more than one boss.
She also reported that in two firms the principle of unity of command was applied conscientiously in assigning responsibility and
defining the role of the personnel manager.
Yet (Woodward, 1965:116):
It soon became obvious . . . that the pattern
of informal relationshipsemerging from day-today operationsin these firms was not very different from what it would have been if the
personnel manager had been made formally responsible to more than one superior. He regarded other senior executives as his superiors
and their requests as executive instructions.As
so frequently happens, informal organization
had created the very situation which formal
organizationhad been devised to avoid.
The above studies support the position
that violations of the principles of unity of
command and single accountability frequently result in consequences predicted
from classical theory: increased role conflict, less satisfied employees, less effective

153

performance, and less adequate use of time.

Yet Woodward's study suggested that it may
apply only in certain situations. Other factors
present in the organization can shield organizational members from harmful effects of
conflicting demands, and prevent them from
playing one superior against another. Physical technology may serve to control the flow
of directions and information in such a manner that application of these principles results in undesirable encumbrances.
Relation of role conflict to member satisfaction and performance. Is role conflict
associated with decreased satisfaction and
decreased organizational effectiveness? An
examination of research findings concerned
specifically with role conflict will further
specify the effects of role conflict on individuals and the conditions under which such
role conflict is likely to have negative effects.
Many role-conflict situations are temporary but certain positions constantly visit
conflicting role pressures upon their incumbents. The best known of such positions is
that of the foreman, who is often caught in
the middle (Roethlisberger, 1965) between
conflicting demands from superiors and subordinates. And as Barnard (1938:277) noted,
there are many organizational conditions
that impose on the executive function "a
moral complexity and a moral conflict presumably not soluble." Both Frank (1958)
and Ditz (1959) found that conflicting directions made it necessary for managers to
use multiple criteria in judging personnel
performance; however, the necessary criteria
could not be specified, even theoretically,
and thus posed a dilemma. In a case study
of the resolution by managers of formal and
informal role systems, Dalton (1955) classified executives as strong or weak according
to the behavior they displayed in reconciling
role conflict. Strong executives had a high
tolerance for conflict and, unlike the weak
executives, carried home little of the effects
of job discord. In addition to the above case
studies, several surveys documented the effect of role conflict in organizations. Seeman
(1953) found that for school executives potential sources of role conflict resulted in
significant decision-making difficulty.
Gullahorn (1956) found that unresolved
role conflicts among union members was as-

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

154

ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

sociated with an increasing tendency to view

problems unrealistically. Getzels and Guba
(1954) in a study of role conflict in army
schools found that: (1) schools with military
subject matter had the least conflict among
staff, because there was little difference between officer and instructor roles; (2) respondents who did not volunteer for teaching duty, but were not given the opportunity
to refuse teaching assignments, had high
conflict scores; (3) ineffective teachers experienced the most conflict.
Gross et al. (1958) found a significant negative correlation between perceived role conflict and three of four measures of job
satisfaction. Charters (1952) found that conflicting expectations were associated with the
feeling of being caught in the middle only
if foremen: (1) interacted with the workers
and management personnel who entertained
the conflicting expectations; (2) accurately
perceived the contradictory nature of the expectations; and (3) were motivated to conform to the expectations of both workers and
management. Many of the foremen who felt
"in the middle" accepted the situation as a
legitimate aspect of their jobs and were
neither insecure nor discontent. Thus from
the above studies it seems clear that role
conflict is associated with decreased satisfaction, coping behavior that would be dysfunctional for the organization, and experiences of stress and anxiety.
Relation of role ambiguity to member satisfaction and performance. Is role ambiguity
associated with decreased satisfaction and
decreased organizational effectiveness? Kahn
et al. (1964) asserted that role ambiguity results from organizational size and complexity
which exceed the individual's span of comprehension, rapid organizational growth
which is usually accompanied by frequent
reorganizations, frequent changes in technology which in turn require associated
changes in social structure, frequent changes
in personnel which disturb interdependencies, changes in the environment of the
organization which impose new demands on
its members, and managerial philosophies
which foster restriction on information flow
throughout the organization. The study
showed that 35 percent of a national sample
of employees were disturbed by lack of a
clear idea of the scope and responsibilities

of their jobs. The interviews indicated that

high degrees of role ambiguity were associated with increased tension, anxiety, fear and
hostility, decreased job satisfaction, and loss
of self-confidence, often with lower productivity.
Cohen (1959) found that ambiguous definition of a task and inconsistent direction
from a superior resulted in an increase in
anxiety, a less favorable attitude toward the
superior, and a decrease in productivity.
Wispe and Thayer (1957) interviewing
three levels of management in a life insurance company, found that managers
whose roles were largely ambiguous were
the most anxious. iMandell (1956) surveyed
695 persons in trades, clerical work, and engineering and accounting occupations. Respondents agreed that one of the most important characteristics of a good supervisor
was the ability to issue clear instructions.
Supervisors who were rated low in performance were also rated low in the extent to
which they gave clear information to their
subordinates. Supervisory willingness to inform subordinates of their performance was
found to be a factor in morale.
Smith (1957), in an experimental study
with 140 college students systematically
varied the amount of role ambiguity and
measured the effects on problem solving.
Results showed that: (1) when groups were
asked to solve problems without clarification
of the role each member was to perform,
their efficiency was significantly less than
when the roles were made clear; (2) role
ambiguity markedly reduced group satisfaction with the experience; and (3) the
hostility level was significantly higher for
groups under conditions of role ambiguity
as compared to control groups. Subsequent
role clarification significantly reduced the
hostility, but did not completely counteract
the effects of the original ambiguity. Thus
previous survey and experimental evidence
suggests that role ambiguity, like role conflict, results in undesirable consequences for
both organizational members and for organizational performance.
THE PRESENT STUDY
It is clear that both role conflict and ambiguity are important intervening variables
that mediate the effects of various organiza-

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rizzo et al:

ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

tional practices on individual and organizational outcomes. However, it is also clear

that little is known about the relationship
between these concepts or among their
theoretical components, and that the research cited used varied measures and
methods and very often did not systematically relate these concepts to other variables
in a complex organizational setting. This
study is addressed to the development and
validation of these two role constructs against
measures of organizational and management
practices, leadership behavior, satisfaction,
anxiety, propensity to leave, and demographic variables.
DEFINITIONS AND QUESTIONNAIRE
DEVELOPMENT
The questionnaire developed consisted of
30 items (Table 1), 15 of which dealt with
role ambiguity (even numbers) and 15 with
role conflict (odd numbers).
A role is most typically defined as a set of
expectations about behavior for a position in
a social structure. Expectations define behavioral requirements or limits ascribed to the
role by the focal person filling that position,
or by others who relate to the role or simply
have notions about it. The expectations are
conditioned by general experience and
knowledge, values, perceptions, and specific
experience with focal person(s). They serve
as standards for evaluating the worth or
appropriateness of behavior, and they tend
to condition or determine such behavior.
Role concepts such as the following are
found in the literature: (1) role sets or
of roles in a social structure;
systems-set(s)
(2) role sector(s) or sent role(s)-subset(s)
of expectations from counter position(s) in
the role structure; (3) role ambiguity or
clarity; and (4) role conflict.
Role Conflict
Role conflict is defined in terms of the
dimensions of congruency-incongruency or
compatibility-incompatibility in the requirements of the role, where congruency or
compatibility is judged relative to a set of
standards or conditions which impinge upon
role performance. Kahn et al. (1964) used
such concepts as person-role conflict, interrole conflict, intersender conflict, and intra-

155

sender conflict. Gross et al. (1958) used

intrarole and interrole conflict with emphasis on exposure to incompatible expectations and on the perceiver of the incompatibility, i.e., focal person or observer.
Definitions of these role conflict components,
as used in the present scale are given below.
Incompatibility or incongruency may result in various kinds of conflict:
1. Conflict between the focal person's internal standards or values and the defined
role behavior (items 3, 5, 27, 29). This is a
person-role conflict or intrarole conflict of
the focal person as he fills a single position
or role.
2. Conflict between the time, resources,
or capabilities of the focal person and defined role behavior (items 1, 11, 15, 17, 25).
Where one other person in a related role
generates the incompatibility, this may be
viewed as intrasender conflict. It may also
be organizationally generated. From the
point of view of the focal person, there is
intrarole conflict or person-role conflict, e.g.,
insufficient capability.
3. Conflict between several roles for the
same person which require different or incompatible behaviors, or changes in behavior as a function of the situation (items 7
and 19); i.e. role overload. This is interrole
conflict for the focal person as he fills more
than one position in the role system.
4. Conflicting expectations and organizational demands in the form of incompatible
policies (items 9 and 13), conflicting requests from others (item 21), and incompatible standards of evaluation (item 23).
These role conflict items suggest sanctions
attached to role behavior and are therefore
related to the role ambiguity components
which involve the prediction of the outcome
of one's behavior. Also, the items may reflect
more than the category cited. Finally, the
sources of conflict cited in the literaturemultiple authority, professional values-are
for the most part not specifically included in
the items.
Role Ambiguity
Role ambiguity is not elaborately defined
in the literature. The definition used here is
in terms of (1) the predictability of the outcome or responses to one's behavior (items
8, 16, 24, 30), and (2) the existence or clarity

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ADMINISTRATIVE

156
TABLE

1.

SCIENCE QUARTERLY

QUESTIONNAIRE

ITEMS

AND FACTOR LOADINGS

Factor
loadings
.30
Item
number
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Items 10

Role
conflict

Statement

I have enough time to complete my work.

I feel certain about how much authority I have.
I perform tasks that are too easy or boring.
Clear, planned goals and objectives for my job.
I have to do things that should be done differently.
Lack of policies and guidelines to help me.
I am able to act the same regardless of the group I am with.
I am corrected or rewarded when I really don't expect it.
I work under incompatible policies and guidelines.
I know that I have divided my time properly.
I receive an assignment without the manpower to complete it.
I know what my responsibilities are.
I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment.
I have to "feel my way" in performing my duties.
I receive assignmentsthat are within my training and capability.
I feel certain how I will be evaluated for a raise or promotion.
I have just the right amount of work to do.
I know that I have divided my time properly.
I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently.
I know exactly what is expected of me.
I receive incompatible requests from two or more people.
I am uncertain as to how my job is linked.
I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not
accepted by others.
I am told how well I am doing my job.
I receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials
to execute it.
Explanation is clear of what has to be done.
I work on unnecessary things.
I have to work under vague directives or orders.
I perform work that suits my values.
I do not know if my work will be acceptable to my boss.
and 18 on this administrationwere identical, owing to a clerical error.

of behavioral requirements, often in terms

of inputs from the environment, which
would serve to guide behavior and provide
knowledge that the behavior is appropriate
(the remaining even-numbered items).
Therefore, the items reflect certainty about
duties, authority, allocation of time, and
relationships with others; the clarity or
existence of guides, directives, policies; and
the ability to predict sanctions as outcomes
of behavior.
METHOD
Role Questionnaire
Subjects were requested to respond to
each role item, indicating the degree to

Role
ambiguity
.51
.42

.60
.43
.31
.60
.62
.56
.61
.54
.36

-.35
.34
.32
.59

.43
.61

.56
.41
.52
.35
.52
.59
.39
.30

which the condition existed for him, on a

seven-point scale ranging from very false to
very true.
Other Variables
For the purpose of relating the derived
role measures to other measures, the role
measures were correlated with 45 variables
included in the study. A complete list of
these variables, including the number of
items in each, means, standard deviations,
reliabilities, and correlations appears in
Table 2. They fall into the following categories. The satisfaction, leadership, organization, and anxiety variables were derived in
part from separate factor analyses of each
set.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rizzo et al:

ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

Satisfaction: the degree to which the satisfaction condition described in the item is
perceived to exist or be fulfilled (7-point
scale).
Leadership: the frequency with which the
respondent perceives his boss engaging in
given behaviors (Ohio State University
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire,
5-point scale).
Organization: the degree of which certain
organizational or management practices are
perceived to exist (7-point scale).
Anxiety: true-false description of existence
of physical symptoms, feelings of pressure or
stress, both general and job induced. (Part
of the items were drawn from the Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scale).
Demographic: age, education, tenure,
organization level.
Propensity to leave: the plans for and conditions under which the respondent would
leave the organization, each ranging from
low to high propensity to leave.

57

the company less than 10 years. The samples

differed in two respects. Although 60 to 65
percent of both samples were 3 to 5 levels
from the top of the organization, sample A
included 30 corporate staff employees nearer
the top, while sample B contained a slightly
higher percentage of respondents at 6 to 7
levels from the top. Also members of sample
B were slightly better educated, with 80 percent having bachelor's and master's degrees
compared to 67 percent in sample A.
Administration
The variables analyzed were all derived
from a single combined instrument of approximately 350 items. The instrument was
administered to groups ranging from 10 to
50. Anonymity was assured and participation
was voluntary; only 5 percent of the drawn
sample did not complete the questionnaire.
Administration time took between one and
a half and two hours.
RESULTS

Sample
The questionnaire was administered to a
35 percent random sample of the central
offices and main plant of the firm and to a
100 percent sample of the research and
engineering division. All respondents were
salaried managerial and technical employees,
excluding salesmen, first level foremen, and
clerical personnel. The total number of respondents were treated as two samples.
Sample A (N = 199) represents a 35 percent sample of central office and main plant
personnel plus 35 percent of the respondents,
the total universe, of the research and engineering division. Thus sample A consists
of a 35 percent random sample of salaried
employees of the total organization with exceptions previously noted. Sample B (N =
91) represents the remaining 65 percent of
the research and engineering personnel who
completed the questionnaire but were not
randomly placed in sample A. The samples
were divided in the above manner to permit
a representative sampling of the entire firm
and to permit maximum sampling of the research and engineering division. Approximately 70 percent of both samples were between the ages of 25-50 years; 93 percent
were married; and 65-70 percent were with

Factor Analysis
The responses to the role questionnaire
items were factor analyzed using an image
covariance method and rotated using a
varimax criterion (Kaiser, 1958a, 1958b) in
order to test relationships and structural relationships of the role conflict and ambiguity
definitions. Table 3 presents item means,
standard deviations, and the unrotated and
rotated factor structures. Two factors were
extracted which account for 56 percent of
the common variance of the 30-item set.
Factor I was named role conflict because
it primarily reflected items drawn from the
role conflict definition. Items loading .30, or
greater are shown in Table 1. Of the 15 role
conflict items, 9 are represented with loadings greater than or equal to .30. Among the
remaining 6 items, 3 items (7, 15, 29) loaded
primarily on factor II, role ambiguity, 2
items (1, 17) were complex lower-loading
items, and one item (3) loaded in the expected direction but with a low magnitude.
Five of these 6 items were from that part of
the role conflict definition representing
person-role or intrasender conflict. Four role
ambiguity items loaded on this factor (6, 14,
28, 30). They are drawn from both parts of

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

158

0~~~~~~~~P

'r

CY

.y

t
n

)fm

I
o

CD
bo

c o

o-

CN
C0N Ci

II1
t-I I IJ

q0

ooo0 0
Cq Gq Gq Gq oq

o.

C~1O~cO~
Z n

C
COc

Ca COCOCa

C1

Ci . ' .
. 0 . o . Gq
. 10 .

CZ

CO
cq

ctCOC
Co
c

cTh '

1I111
i

I.

t-bo 00
10 't

t0 o

-4

'

o Cc '

Gq I
Gq o

II I

'

ci

C'

Gq -4
1111

>~~~~~~
Y

gq~~~~~~~~~0

~ ~

C
10

Io 00

)Cz
Co

h~~~~~~~~~~~~~ro ~~~~~~~~q ~r
O

00

>

O2

.=

0 t-

tC

C-

o'SbOt
t-

00o z to

--o

O
co

co

rCO
cq O-- C

CO
t-

t-

to

.o

-t

CO Ct4 o

01 Gq r-- 't

fZOO)fO
16i

coH,- cl

om

m m 0 co It

D 4

C6

00F
t-~0

co

t-

't

~o scsoO

C6

cs

cs

C C6

'tc

cocot-

,-'o

co G-q

ci C6oo

-t

o --

t-

00

Co

I-

Co

CO

coo

co~- coacIt00coo

-'

C6 4

Ci

C6

C6

C6

co s

~o

C0

coct

co)f >

't

CD

bO-%CZLCL
C6
C6 C6 t C4

H,

c~lo

't

tHC

o co
Q t

'

co

%F~~~OC
ZH
4
C6

Gn

00
C0

?q

X~~~~~~~~~~~c
x

ci

-.Y~)~

PQ

1n

C
01

~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~
.
.
.
.

C0

C6

C6o C6

t-cocc

cs

C6o

-t C6

cZICFCOO
C6 o
HC

4o

o1

Gq

\-<

co

co

t-

'to0

5Col

C)
Cd~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

0
X

t cO
t t t If)
~~~~~~~
.~
.~ .~ .0
;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

cO cO t
cO~~C4

f7

ca cOcdcO cO

>

t
n

Oc

ttcd

s
~~~~~~~~~~~~
%~0
nt>
nt>
Z

0
6
6
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
i
'cc

A C) I

t~~~~~~~~~c

to

.^

8v

- P
cd

cd
=tJ-

t8

lc

t1S a8E?g=
?~~~~~~~~~~-1~
>=;,
8U=aX
d

? Hca
H t'

g g g X Q ' g X So

CXcompmcssoos4

<

0 gS
g~~~~~~~~

~~

..HraotH H
Cd

co
H

?
H

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ci

id

cdrocco
C
CJ

m
Ci

iCi

et al:

Rizzo
r-

't

1C5o

ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

-

co

C1 o

111.1.1
so.
4J

ltq

Gq 't

.h

Tt

co

't

't

NQoC

SC

.I .I.I.

~ I I II I I I I I
o
0
0co c
0co
cq co cq
~ ~ ~~~

Gq 10

-q 60

cq coCOt

159

. .

t-

>

t
.

I I
m00

01

. .

m 00 00

.
.

.,.q0

4ct
000000000

)i

00

IC OI

00 'q

I-

.i

0 0

m I-b

ccsct b

.t .t. .S

O co-

. .sK
.S .q

It

_q _ co
cq t- 1 't
CObM M t- It
Co co00 Lc 00,
It' co

r-- b
bOm
c0 ?Ot "tCO
2t I- 0oo00

OO

I.O I

.O

db

.O

cq co o
cto 0
r co

.n0

.?

m 1

QJ

Itp

cq 0oo
-

C ..C

co m cot b 00
co]dq
t . "It. C . 't . - ..

...

c . oo. b]
] o.

~~~~~~t0 o oo

00

b)

Xl0

ooCos
001

m m 0
qC

Itq

cq m cq
00

co

It Itdi

r-b

0~~~~~ 000r-q

01

Hbdqd

mm

oo

oq

Ocd
4-

liQ.~

~ ~ ~

't

CZ >0
?

10 'dt
0

o Lcq

1m

q 1 0 -t

CQ~~~~~~O

oom

st-

I.

co co CO'

t It

It

mco

cqt-

- 0

cODt

q co
00

cst
m

_q _q I

It

co

_q
ncco0

r-q

0coH

Ci9OmCo

co q m co

q cq C
o
o

0 CA

14 14

ci 1-

cO

00 co '

- It

co 10

~o

0t

_q

S~~~~

m C'. C'.6 4 . C56

i 6 14.- l~

cc-

4 1

01c
4-

>
w

a)Acri0
.~~~
cd 0

co

't

'tcOi

cttt
I~'~~0
0

?-

6b'
Ccd0

qd

0 04-5H
O6 0
CZ

0S

-0

*4

booo
cd

u
&

ON

So

m~co co0 It

4 cj

0 c

. t0 r 0 m

0 o

4U v

1
C6
C6
C6

C.,

O0

00

6oco:t-0
C

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

160

ADMINISTRATIVE

TABLE

3.

SCIENCE QUARTERLY

FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

ITEMS,

FOR SAMPLE

Factor loadings
Unrotated
Standard
deviation

Role
conflict

Role
ambiguity

Item

Mean

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Items 10 and

3.85
1.81
-.33
4.00
1.80
-.49
1.88
4.00
.08
-.30
3.95
1.70
.54
4.19
1.80
1.80
.49
4.12
4.46
1.72
-.19
2.87
1.61
.13
.53
3.60
1.93
1.48
-.27
4.16
.44
4.50
2.04
-.49
5.05
1.60
.43
3.66
1.98
4.33
.50
1.92
5.90
1.14
-.19
4.05
-.17
1.88
1.63
3.01
-.35
3.96
-.24
1.68
.33
4.70
2.06
4.20
1.67
-.53
3.88
2.04
.50
.33
3.01
1.88
.44
4.35
1.89
-.23
3.66
1.76
.45
4.24
1.82
3.92
1.58
-.38
.53
1.88
3.66
.61
3.76
1.77
4.52
1.58
-.25
.38
3.32
1.69
18 were identical; only item 10 was scored.

.08
.27
.18
.30
.29
.07
.24
.17
.29
.57
.34
.39
.33
-.05
.18
.29
.13
.56
.28
.36
.28
.03
.11
.14
.26
.15
.17
.19
.29
.00

Rotated
Role
conflict

Role
ambiguity

-.21
-.22
.17
-.05
.60*
.43
.00
.21
.60
.14
.56*
-.16
.54*
.36
-.04
.05
-.20
.15
.48*
-.20
.56*
.28
.41*
-.09
.52*
-.21
.52*
.59
-.02
.30

.26
.51*
.09
.42*
-.10
-.24
.31
.06
-.10
.62*
.00
.61*
.00
-.35
.26
.34
.32
.59
.02
.61*
-.08
-.17
-.18
.25
-.07
.35*
-.19
-.22
.39
-.23

Items used in scoring factors.

the ambiguity definition (predictability of

sanctions and external inputs). This factor
accounts for 32 percent of the common
variance.
Factor II was named role ambiguity because it reflected items drawn primarily from
the same definition. Most items were in the
direction of role clarity. The sign of such
items are reflected in scoring. Items loading
greater than or equal to .30 are shown in
Table 1. Of the 15 role ambiguity items, 9
are represented on this factor. Among the
remaining 6 items, 4 (6, 22, 24, 30) loaded
primarily on factor I, but might also be
viewed as complex items with lower loadings (opposite sign) on factor I (item 14
was also complex): one item (8) loaded
low, but primarily on factor I; and one item

(24) loaded in the expected manner, but

with a low magnitude. Factor II accounts
for 26.3 percent of the common variance of
the set.
The factor analysis revealed that the two
factors extracted strongly parallel the two
theoretical concepts of role conflict and role
ambiguity; therefore, the unexamined yet
often presumed separation of the two constructs seems warranted by this study. However, the specific definitional parts of these
two concepts, as extracted from the literature and defined by the authors, did not
emerge as separate independent factors.
Scale Development
For purposes of developing scales, items
were selected for scoring on each factor

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rizzo et al:

ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

161

superiors that might be expected to have a

less direct influence on subordinates, i.e.,
representation of the group to outsiders, upward aspiration, and persuasion, show the
weakest relationships with the role variables.
On the other hand, behaviors indicative of
more direct superior-subordinate relations
show stronger relationships. In these cases,
role conflict and role ambiguity tend to be
lower under conditions in which superiors
are described as more frequently engaging
in emphasizing production under conditions
of uncertainty, providing structure and
standards, facilitating teamwork, tolerating
freedom, and exerting upward influence.
Tolerance of freedom by the superior did
not increase role conflict or role ambiguity,
nor was there a very strong correlation for
role abdication.
Correlations with Other Variables
Both the leadership and the organization
practices
tend to show higher correlations
Table 2 lists the scales, the number of
in
A than sample B, with no signifisample
items for each scale, means, standard deviations, 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 inpoint, and true-false response scales. Table consistency, delay in decisions, distortion
2 indicates the response made for each set and suppression of information, and violaof 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, adesures was .25 (sample A) and .01 (sample quacy of communication, planning, horizonB), indicating relative independence. Table tal communication, top management recep2 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.
These patterns of relationships, taken tothe exception of variable 34.
gether with those variables not highly reAmong the satisfaction variables, there is
lated to the role variables, tend generally to
a clear tendency for higher correlations befit with what one would predict from role
tween the role ambiguity measure and other
theory and previous research. However, varvariables. 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 amwith increased role conflict but decreased
biguity. Need areas associated with work
role ambiguity, indicates that respondents
itself, the reward system, and the pleasantmight have viewed such requests as clarifyness of the social environment appear siming expectations, but possibly conflict inducilarly affected. Job security (variable 6),
ing. Furthermore, violations in chain of
generally high in this organization, (X =
command (variable 35) which would ex4.97) showed the lowest relationship to the clude the immediate supervisor as an input
role measures.
to the respondent is associated with inIn the leadership variables the behavior of creased role conflict and role ambiguity.

using several criteria. First, only items loading greater than or equal to .30 were considered. Second, complex items-those with
relatively high loadings on both factorswere excluded in order to achieve greater
independence of scores. Third, items were
then subjected to reliability analysis (KuderRichardson internal consistency reliabilities
with Spearman-Brown corrections), using an
interative technique which selected items
contributing to the reliability of the final
sets for each scale. Items selected for scoring-marked with an asterisk in Table 3were summed for each respondent and
divided by the number of items in the set.
Factor II items were reflected before scoring (response of 7 changed to 1, 6 to 2, etc.).
Reliabilities are reported in Table 2.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

162

ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

There is only a slight tendency for the

role variables to correlate with demographic,
anxiety, and propensity-to-leave variables;
and among the latter two variables, correlations tend to be positive.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of factor and item analyses
tended to show (1) that the two concepts
of role conflict and role ambiguity emerged
as separate dimensions, (2) that scales derived on the basis of the factor analysis of
sample A were relatively independent for
both samples A and B, and (3) that theoretical components of these concepts did not
emerge as distinct factorial entities.
When the scales developed to measure
these concepts were correlated with other
variables, the scales tended to correlate (1)
negatively with measures of need fulfillment, (2) more strongly with leader behaviors indicative of direct as opposed to indirect interactions with subordinates, (3)
most cases with leadership and varied organizational practices in a pattern one would
predict from classical theory, role theory, and
previous research, and (4) weakly, but
positively, with anxiety and propensity to
leave the organization.
There is no adequate explanation of why
role ambiguity correlated more highly than
role conflict with the satisfaction variables.
Role theory and research often suggest that
role conflict might be the more dysfunctional. This possibility is generally not borne
out for any set of variables in this research.
Furthermore, one might have expected
stronger relationships between role variables
and measures of anxiety or propensity to
leave. It may be that role stress does not
generate anxiety, when leaving is possible, or
a strong desire to leave the system; or that
for certain levels of role stress, adaptive behavior reduces stress, as some literature
indicates. It may also be that for certain
individuals, inputs which might be viewed
as stressful are rewarding. For example,
violations of the chain of command may be
viewed by some as stressful and others as an
opportunity to gain visibility and recognition. These questions are beyond the scope
of the present paper, but are the subject of

a larger research project currently being

conducted by the authors.
The correlational analysis of this study
suggests that a more precise experimental
investigation of the relation between cause
and effect is warranted. Further, more needs
to be known about various levels of role
conflict and role ambiguity. The present
sample had relatively high levels of dysfunctional organizational practices, yet normative data on the scales used are not available
at present to test this.
In conclusion, this paper represents an
attempt to deal with role conflict and role
ambiguity in a more empirical and operational manner than usual. In the past, various procedures have been reported leading
to fairly consistent conclusions, but lacking
rigor in measurement or explanation. Further research of the present kind and like
that of Kahn et al. (1964) offer hope of
making role theory a more useful tool in organizational analysis and theory.
John R. Rizzo is an associate professor in
the department of management at Western
Michigan University. Robert J. House and
Sidney I. Lirtzman are associate professors
in the Bernard M. Baruch College of the
City University of New York.
REFERENCES
Barnard, Chester I.
1938 The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ben-David, Joseph
1958 "The professional role of the physician
in bureaucratized medicine: a study
in role conflict." Human Relations, 2:
255-257.
Blau, Peter M., and W. Richard Scott
1962 Formal Organizations. San Francisco:
Chandler.
Charters, W. W., Jr.
1952 A Study of Role Conflict among Foremen in a Heavy Industry. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Cohen, Arthur R.
1959 "Situational structure, self esteem, and
threat-oriented reactions to power."
In D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power:35-52. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rizzo et al:

ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

Dalton, Melville
1955 "Managing the managers." Human Organization, 14:4-10.
Davis, Ralph C.
1951 Fundamentals of Top Management.
New York: Harper.
Ditz, Gerhard W.
1959 "Industrial administration in communist East Europe." Administrative Science Quarterly, 4:82-96.
Etzioni, Amitai
1959 "Authority structure and organizational
effectiveness." Administrative Science
Quarterly, 4:43-67.
Evans, William M.
1962 "Role strain and the norm of reciprocity in research organization." American Journal of Sociology, 68:346-354.
Frank, Andrew C.
1958 "Goal ambiguity and conflicting standards: approach to the study of organizations." Human Organization, 17:
8-13.
Getzels, Jacob W., and Egon G. Guba
1954 "Role, role conflict and effectiveness:
an empirical study." American Sociological Review, 19:164-175.
Gouldner, Alvin W.
1958a "Cosmopolitans and locals: toward an
analysis of latent social roles-I." Administrative Science Quarterly, 2:281306.
1958b "Cosmopolitans and locals: toward an
analysis of latent social roles-II." Administrative Science Quarterly, 2:444480.
Gross, Neal, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W.
McEachern
1958 Explorations in Role Analysis. New
York: Wiley.
Cullahorn, John T.
1956 "Measuring role conflict." American
Journal of Sociology, 61:299-303.
House, Robert J.
1967 Management Development: Design,
Evaluation and Implementation. Ann
Arbor: Bureau of Industrial Relations,
University of Michigan.
1968 "Leadership training: some dysfunctional consequences." Administrative
Science Quarterly, 12:556-571.
Kahn, Robert L., Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P.
Quinn, J. Diedrick Snoek, and Robert
A. Rosenthal.
1964 Organizational Stress. New York:
Wiley.
Kaiser, Henry F.
1958a Best Approximation of a Common Va-

163

riance Factor Space. Working paper,

Bureau of Educational Research, University of Illinois, Research Report No.
25.
1958b "The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis." Psychometrika, 23:187-200.
Kaplan, Norman
1959 "The role of the research administrator." Administrative Science Quarterly,
4:20-41.
La Porte, Todd R.
1965 "Conditions of strain and accomodation in industrial research organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, 10:21-28.
Mandell, Milton M.
1956 "Supervisory characteristics and ratings: a summary of recent research."
Personnel, 32:435-440.
Perrow, Charles
1965 "Hospitals: technology, structure, and
goals." In James G. March (ed.),
Handbook of Organizations:910-971.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Phelen, John L.
1960 "Authority and flexibility in Spanish
imperial bureaucracy." Administrative
Science Quarterly, 5:47-65.
Reissman, Leonard
1949 "A study of role conceptions in bureaucracy." Social Forces, 27:305-310.
Roethlisberger, Fritz J.
1965 "The foreman: master and victim of
double talk." Harvard Business Review, 45: 22ff.
Seeman, Melvin
1953 "Role conflict and ambivalence in leadership." American Sociological Review,
18:373-380.
Smith, Ewart E.
1957 "The effects of clear and unclear role
expectations on group productivity
and defensiveness." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55:213217.
Wispe, Lauren G., and Paul W. Thayer
1957 "Role ambiguity and anxiety in an
occupational group." Journal of Social
Psychology, 46:41-48.
Woodward, Joan
1965 Industrial Organization. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Zawacki,J. S.
1963

A System of Unofficial Rules of a Bureaucracy: A Study of Hospitals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburg.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:46:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions