Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 150-163.
Summary
The chain-of-command principle postulates that a single line of authority, running from the top of the organization to the bottom, results in increased job satisfaction and performance. When an employee receives two differing sets of instructions from two different supervisors, role conflict occurs. When the behaviors expected of an employee constantly change, role conflict can also occur. Both of these examples can also be thought of as role ambiguity, when a set position does not have a “specified set of tasks or position responsibilities.” Having clear role expectations additionally allows management to better evaluate performance and institute accountability. Conversely, role ambiguity results in stress, dissatisfaction, and decreased performance.
Since authority can either be hierarchical or based on expertise, and since authorities are not necessarily experts, the opportunity for role conflict emerges when employees must choose between the two authority figures. In hospitals, nurses are frequently caught between medical experts (doctors) and hierarchical authorities (administration). In role conflict, imposing pressure results in decreased trust, less personal affinity, and decreased communication and effectiveness. The authors develop a 2 dimensional scale consisting of 8 items measuring role conflict and 6 items measuring role ambiguity.
Application
Roles should be clear. There should be a standard of specific job descriptions for each position. Informal authority roles should be minimized so as to preserve clear chain-of-command.
Comments powered by Disqus.