th e importance of role clarifi cation in workgroups:

8/10/2019 Th e Importance of Role Clarifi cation in Workgroups:

1/11

Shahidul Hassan is assistant professorof public management at the John GlennSchool of Public Affairs (The Ohio StateUniversity). His research focuses on the rolethat managerial practices play in improvingmotivation, commitment, and performanceof public sector employees. His researchworks have appeared in the Journal of

Managerial Psychology, Journal ofLeadership and Organization Studies,International Public Management

Journal, and American Review ofPublic Administration.E-mail: [email protected]

716 Public Administration Review Sep tember | October 2013

Public Administration Review ,Vol. 73, Iss. 5, pp. 716725. 2013 byThe American Society for Public Administration.DOI: 10.1111/puar.12100.

Shahidul Hassan

The Ohio State University

Tis article examines how greater role claricationmay be associated with increased work satisfaction anddecreased turnover rates in workgroups. Tese linkages areexamined with the use of multivariate analysis of vari-ance and hierarchical regression analysis for data collectedduring two time periods from multiple sources: personnel

records and an organizational survey of 1,699 employeesworking in 45 geographically distributed offi ces in a state government agency. Results indicate that offi ces with ahigh level of role clarication had signicantly higherlevels of work satisfaction and lower rates of turnover.

Additionally, the effects of role clarication on work sat-isfaction and turnover behavior were mediated by overallrole clarity perceived in these offi ces. Te implications ofthese ndings for effective management of workgroups in

government agencies are discussed.

he institutional context in which publicorganizations operate has important impli-cations for their day-to-day operations and

performance (Perry and Rainey 1988; Rainey andSteinbauer 1990; Wamsley and Zald 1973). Publicagencies deal with complex policy problems, pursuevalue-laden goals, and provide services for which clearperformance criteria are not readily available (Allison1983; Dahl and Lindblom 1953; Wildavsky 1979;

Wilson 1989). Public organizations also need toattend to competing demands from various stakehold-ers and interest groups (Lowi 1979; Rainey 1993;Ring and Perry 1985). Public management scholar-ship suggests that a lack of clear performance criteria,

policy complexity, and competing demands fromstakeholders lead to goal ambiguity (Chun and Rainey2005), which, in turn, createssubstantial role ambiguity foremployees working in publicagencies (Wright 2004). Erera(1989), for example, found thatvagueness and constant changein state policies caused consid-erable role ambiguity amongmanagers in a state agency.Pandey and Wright (2006)

found that a lack of clarity in organizational goalsdirectly as well as indirectly (by increasing proceduralconstraints) increased role ambiguity among managersin health and human services agencies.

Te consequences of high levels of role ambiguity

have important cost implications for public agen-cies. While a certain level of role ambiguity is likelyto exist in all jobs and may even be benecial interms of increasing employee creativity and learning(Savelsbergh et al. 2012), a high level of ambigu-ity regarding job goals and performance expecta-tions creates stress and frustration among employees(Schaubroeck et al. 1993) and may inuence them toleave the organization (Jung 2011). Organizationalresearch indicates that work stressors, including roleambiguity and role conict, contribute negatively toemployee mental health (Ganster and Schaubroeck1991). Role ambiguity has also consistently beenshown to have a negative inuence on a wide range ofbenecial employee dispositions, including job satis-faction, organizational commitment, and job involve-ment (Fisher and Gitelson 1983; Jackson and Schuler1985). More importantly, research indicates thatambiguity about job goals and performance expecta-tions lowers employee job performance (cf. ubre andCollins 2000).

Given the widely acknowledged costs associated withrole ambiguity, it is surprising that few studies in pub-lic management have investigated how to enhance role

clarity in public organizations. Specically, researchhas yet to examine whether managerial practices canattenuate the adverse effectsof role ambiguity on organiza-tional outcomes. Te presentstudy was designed to examinehow role clarication may affectperceived role clarity, worksatisfaction, and turnover ratesin distinct offi ces or workgroupsin a government agency. Basedon role theory (Graen 1976;

Te Importance of Role Clarication in Workgroups:

Effects on Perceived Role Clarity, Work Satisfaction,and urnover Rates

Te present study was designedto examine how role clarica-tion may affect perceived roleclarity, work satisfaction, and

turnover rates in distinct offi cesor workgroups in a government

agency.


2/11

The Importance of Role Clarication in Workgroups: Effects on Perceived Role Clarity, Work Satisfaction, and Turnover Rates 717

work practices can also increase role ambiguity (Jimmieson, erry,and Callan 2004; Lyons 1971). Additionally, lack of managerialcommunication or poor communication may lead to increased roleambiguity among employees (House and Mitchell 1974; House andRizzo 1972; Lyons 1971).

High levels of role ambiguity have detrimental effects on cooperativeattitudes and behaviors of employees (Jackson and Schuler 1985;ubre and Collins 2000). Role ambiguity increases stress becauseconcerns about how to perform job roles and obtain valued out-comes (both material and social) often cause frustration and anxietyamong employees. It can also lead to, as previously noted, a lack ofemployee commitment and involvement and diminished employeeperformance (Jackson and Schuler 1985; Schaubroeck et al. 1993;ubre and Collins 2000). Additionally, incongruity betweenreceived role requirements (i.e., role conict) can lower perceptionsof self-competence and engender frustration and dissatisfactionamong employees. Kahn and colleagues (1964) suggested that whenemployees experience high levels of role ambiguity and role conict,they will try to reduce the associated stress by avoiding the job situa-tion through chronic absence or leaving the organization.

Impact of Role Clarication on Perceived Role Clarityin WorkgroupsRole clarication is a task-oriented leader behavior that is targetedtoward providing cognitive structures to subordinates about howthey can attain their job goals (House 1996; Yukl 2010). Whilethe main purpose of role clarication is to guide and coordinatesubordinate work activities and make sure subordinates know whatthey need to do, it also includes setting task objectives in work-groups. Yukl and colleagues (Yukl 2010; Yukl, Gordon, and aber2002) noted that setting specic task objectives directs subordinatesefforts toward performance of important duties and responsibilities,encourages search for effi cient ways of doing work, and facilitatesevaluation of performance by providing a benchmark against whichto compare it.

Role clarication is a core component of initiating structure, oneof the two key leader behavior dimensions3 identied in the OhioState leadership studies (Fleishman 1953; Fleishman and Harris1962; Stogdill, Goode, and Day 1962). Role clarication also is theprimary component of directive behavior in the path-goal theoryof leadership (House 1971; House and Mitchell 1974). Althoughresearch on the consequences of using initiating structure wasinconclusive, studies on role clarication found stronger results(Fisher and Edwards 1988; Podsakoff et al. 1995; Wofford and Liska1993). Several studies showed that role clarication is an important

determinant of managerial effectiveness (Kim and Yukl 1995; Yukland Van Fleet 1982). Additionally, laboratory and eld experimentshave consistently found that setting specic and challenging goals

results in higher levels of individual and groupperformance (Locke and Latham 1990).

Te effect of role clarication on perceived roleclarity in workgroups may depend on severalsituational factors, such as employee skilllevel, experience, and job complexity (House1996; House and Mitchell 1974). Workgroupsthat are designed to accomplish complex and

Kahn et al. 1964; Katz and Kahn 1978) and path-goal theory ofleadership (House 1971, 1996; House and Mitchell 1974), roleclarication in this study is anticipated to have an indirect positiveeffect on work satisfaction and an indirect negative effect on turno-ver behavior by improving perceived role clarity in workgroups.Tese linkages are examined with multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA) and hierarchical regression analysis with data that werecollected during two time periods using a survey and personnelrecords of 1,699 employees working in 45 geographically distrib-uted offi ces in an agency in state government. Te following sectiondraws from the extant organizational research to develop theoreti-cal arguments and a set of testable hypotheses about how greaterrole clarication may be associated with increased work satisfactionand decreased turnover rates by improving perceived role clarity in

workgroups.

Theory and HypothesesOrganizational scholars have long suggested that the developmentand maintenance of roles are critical to the socialization, perform-ance, and well-being of employees in organizations (Graen 1976;Kahn et al. 1964; Katz and Kahn 1978). Roles basically are a set ofactivities or behaviors that are expected by relevant organizational

constituents from a person holding a particular position in anorganization (Graen 1976; Katz and Kahn 1978). Organizationstend to divide complex tasks into specialized activities, assign theactivities to specic roles, and then integrate the outputs of thoseactivities into nal goods and services (Katz and Kahn 1978). Teformal specication of role requirements is intended to provideguidance and direction to employees about how to carry out their

work activities, as well as to hold them accountable for specic levelsof performance (Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman 1970).

Role theory suggests that role making is a dynamic process involvingan employee and his or her direct supervisor1 whereby the employeeacquires knowledge about the demands and constraints placed onhis or her behavior, receives feedback regarding his or her behaviorin the role, accepts a pattern of behavior, and modies it over time(Graen 1976; Katz and Kahn 1978; Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen1980). Roles are seldom fully specied in advance for organiza-tional members (Schaubroeck et al. 1993). In addition, role-makingprocesses can be complicated by poor communication betweenrolesenders 2 and role receivers,as well as by turbulence within an organi-zations task environment that requires constant modications inroles (Katz and Kahn 1978; Schaubroeck et al. 1993). Role ambi-guity occurs when roles are not suffi ciently articulated in terms ofdomain, methods of fulllment, and consequences of role perform-ance (Kahn et al. 1964; Schaubroeck et al. 1993).

Kahn and colleagues (1964) identied three organizational factorsthat may contribute to greater role ambiguity: (1) organizationalcomplexity, (2) organizational change, and(3) managerial communication. Increasedorganizational complexity in terms of higherlevels of centralization, formalization, andgoal ambiguity can lead to greater role ambi-guity (House and Rizzo 1972; Morris, Steers,and Koch 1979; Nicholson and Goh 1983;Pandey and Wright 2006). Organizationalchanges that require frequent restructuring of

Workgroups that are designedto accomplish complex and

nonroutine tasks, for example,may require more role clarica-tion than workgroups that carry

out routine or simple tasks.


3/11


may also inuence members to cognitively as well as behaviorallydisassociate from the workgroup. Te relationships between roleambiguity and job satisfaction and between role ambiguity andturnover have been studied extensively in organizational research.

A meta-analysis by Abramis (1994) showed a negative correla-tion between role ambiguity and job satisfaction. Another meta-analysis found a negative relationship between role ambiguity andturnover behavior (Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner 2000). Studiesin public management also found a negative connection betweenrole ambiguity and job satisfaction (Kim and Wright 2007; Wrightand Kim 2004; Wright and Davis 2003) and a positive connectionbetween role ambiguity and turnover intention (Jung 2012; Kimand Wright 2007) at the individual level of analysis. But very littleresearch in public management has examined the linkage betweenrole ambiguity and turnover behavior of employees. One studyfound a positive association between role ambiguity and turnoverrates in federal agencies (Jung 2011). Based on these results andarguments from role theory, the following two hypotheses aretested in this study:

Hypothesis 2: Offi ces with a high level of role clarity willhave higher levels of work satisfaction than offi ces with a low

level of role clarity.

Hypothesis 3: Offi ces with a high level of role clarity willhave lower rates of turnover than offi ces with a low level ofrole clarity.

Impacts of Role Clarication on Perceived Work Satisfactionand Turnover Behavior Role clarication is likely to enhance work satisfaction and reduceturnover rates by increasing role clarity perceived in workgroups.Specically, the effects of role clarication efforts on work satisfac-tion and turnover behavior in this study are expected to be medi-ated by overall role clarity perceived in the offi ces. wo hypothesesconcerning these relationships were formulated based on the worksof House and colleagues (House 1971, 1996; House and Mitchell1974; House and Rizzo 1972) that suggested that clarifying jobduties and performance expectations reduces stress, which, in turn,enhances employee satisfaction and decreases employee work with-drawal behaviors.

While the effects of role clarication on work satisfaction andturnover behavior have not been thoroughly investigated in previousstudies, a positive connection between initiating structure4 and worksatisfaction has been found in research in business and industrysettings (Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies 2004). Research has also shown a

negative relationship between instrumental or task-oriented mana-gerial communication and employee turnover behavior (Griffeth,Hom, and Gaertner 2000). Additionally, a recent public sector

study found a negative correlation betweena measure of effective leadership, whichcomprised aspects of role clarication, andemployee turnover behavior (Grissom 2012).However, no previous study has investigated

whether role clarity mediates the effects of roleclarication on work satisfaction and turnoverrates in workgroups. Hence, the following twohypotheses are tested in this study:

nonroutine tasks, for example, may require more role claricationthan workgroups that carry out routine or simple tasks. Additionally,

workgroups with highly experienced members may require lessrole clarication than workgroups with a large number of new orinexperienced members. Nevertheless, role clarication is likely to beimportant in enhancing role clarity in workgroups especially whenthere is substantial uncertainty about work objectives and perform-ance expectations (Yukl 2010). Such conditions are likely to be moreprevalent in government work settings because public organizationsoften need to deal with complex problems and provide services for

which there are no clear performance criteria (Allison 1983; Dahland Lindblom 1953; Wildavsky 1979; Wilson 1989).

Although the connection between role clarication and role clarityhas not been thoroughly investigated in research in public manage-ment, studies by Wright and colleagues (Kim and Wright 2007;

Wright 2004; Wright and Davis 2003) found that performance-oriented feedback enhances employee role clarity in public organiza-tions. Additionally, survey studies in business and industry settingshave consistently found a negative connection between role clarica-tion and role ambiguity at the individual level of analysis (Woffordand Liska 1993). Several eld experiments also showed that role

clarication has a negative impact on role ambiguity (Quick 1979;Schaubroeck et al. 1993). Following these results, a positive associa-tion between role clarication and role clarity at the workgroup levelis anticipated in this study.

Hypothesis 1: Offi ces with a high level of role clarication will have higher levels of role clarity than offi ces with a lowlevel of role clarication.

Linkages between Role Clarity and Perceived WorkSatisfaction and Turnover Behavior Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) suggested that when employeesare unaware of what is expected of them, they may hesitate to act,show a lack of self-determination, and feel unable to make a differ-ence in achieving the organizations goals. Yukl (2010) noted thateven highly competent and motivated employees may fail to achievea high level of performance if they are unsure about their work goalsand responsibilities. Katz and colleagues (1964) asserted that unclearrole expectations may increase employee work withdrawal behaviors,including absenteeism and turnover.

Research on small groups indicates that role clarity is essential forthe effective functioning of workgroups (Bray and Brawley 2002).

As previously noted, roles are a set of prescriptions that dene thebehaviors that are expected from a member of a workgroup (Katz

and Kahn 1978). Clear knowledge about these behavioral expecta-tions is important for a group member to effectively perform his orher work, as well as to coordinate work activities within the group.

When group members do not clearly under-stand their responsibilities, they may under-estimate their ability to achieve their groupsgoals (Bandura 1997), leading to a low levelof group performance (Bray and Brawley2002).

A high level of role ambiguity is likely toincrease dissatisfaction in workgroups. It

A high level of role ambiguityis likely to increase dissatisfac-

tion in workgroups. It may alsoinuence members to cogni-

tively as well as behaviorally dis-associate from the workgroup.


4/11

The Importance of Role Clarication in Workgroups: Effects on Perceived Role Clarity, Work Satisfaction, and Turnover Rates 719

were expected to do in their job and understood which of their job duties were more important than others. Role clarication wasassessed with four items ( = .84) that captured the extent to whichmanagers (1) clearly expressed work and performance expecta-

tions to subordinates, (2) adequately instructed subordinates abouthow to carry out their work activities, (3) informed subordinatesabout organizational issues or changes, and (4) provided feedbackto subordinates when they performed their job well. Work satisfac-tion was measured with two items ( = .79) that were derived fromthe Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Tesetwo items have been used to measure work satisfaction in severalrecent studies (Hassan and Rohrbaugh 2011; Shim and Rohrbaugh,forthcoming).

Offi ce-level employee turnover records for 2009 were collectedin 2010 from 45 of the 65 offi ce locations. Te agency could notprovide disaggregated turnover data for employees in 19 offi ce loca-tions. Te unavailability of turnover data from 19 offi ce locationsresulted in a reduction of the sample size from 2,136 to 1,699, aretention rate of almost 80 percent. Te demographic characteristicsof these respondents were in no way different from respondents

who participated in the survey. Te numbers of employees in the45 offi ces ranged from 3 to 167; 16 offi ces were described by fewerthan 10 employees, while 11 offi ces were described by more than 50employees. Employee turnover rates were calculated by dividing thesum of voluntary separations by the total number of employees ineach offi ce.

Research indicates that various individual and group characteristics

may inuence employee satisfaction and turnover behavior (Choand Lewis 2012; Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner 2000; Grissom 2012;Kellough and Osuna 1995; Shaw et al. 1998). Hence, offi ce size(i.e., total number of employees in each offi ce) and mean positiontenure were included as control variables in the data analyses. Tesetwo variables were included in the analyses because larger offi ces,for instance, may experience more employee turnover than smalleroffi ces. Offi ces with more experienced employees may require lessrole clarication than offi ces with less experienced employees.

Additionally, because the level of role clarity in workgroups maydepend on employee skill level and job complexity, the percentageof professional employees working in the offi ces was included as a

Hypothesis 4: Te inuence of role clarication on worksatisfaction will be mediated by overall role clarity perceivedin offi ces.

Hypothesis 5: Te inuence of role clarication on turn-over rates will be mediated by overall role clarity perceived inoffi ces.

Method of the StudySample and ProceduresTe ve research hypotheses were tested using data that were col-lected during two time periods from two different sources: person-nel records and a survey of employees working in 65 geographicallydispersed offi ces of a government agency with 11 distinct divisionsof operation. Te agency was responsible for maintaining andadministering the states accounting, payroll, and retirement systemsfor public employees. Te agency also was responsible for review-ing states contracts and conducting audits of other state agenciesand public beneciaries, as well as overseeing the scal affairs oflocal governments (including one of the largest municipalities inthe United States). Te survey was designed and distributed to apopulation of 2,614 employees in the spring of 2008 to collect data

regarding their perceptions of managerial practices and their workclimate. Responsibility for the internal distribution and collection ofthe survey was assigned to division managers. Prior to distributingthe survey, the research team and division managers clearly com-municated the purpose of the study to all participants, the voluntarynature of their participation, and the complete anonymity andcondentiality of their responses. Altogether, 2,136 usable ques-tionnaires were returned, for an overall response rate of 82 percent;response rates by division ranged from a low of 70 percent to a highof 100 percent.

Approximately 87 percent of the survey respondents identiedthemselves as Caucasian, 8 percent as African American, 3 percentas Asian, 2 percent as Hispanic, and 1 percent as Native-American;these percentages matched exactly the distribution generated fromagency personnel records. Approximately 60 percent of the respond-ents were female and 40 percent male, nearly matching agencyrecords of 59 percent female and 41 percent male. With regard toposition description, 31 percent of the respondents reported thattheir job was best described as clerical and 66 percent as profes-sional. Te majority of the professional employees in the agency

were accountants, auditors, business analysts, lawyers, informationtechnology specialists, and managers. Te mean age of the respond-ents was 45.6 years; their mean tenures in their position, division,and agency were 4.8 years, 9.8 years, and 11.6 years, respectively; all

three tenure distributions were skewed positively.

Measures All of the survey items were measured either on a six-point (coded16) strength of agreement (strongly disagree, generally disagree,disagree a little, agree a little, generally agree, and strongly agree) oron a ve-point (coded 04) frequency of occurrence (almost never/never, rarely, sometimes, often, and almost always/always) scale (seetable 1 for a complete list of the survey items used in this study).Steerss (1975, 1976) ask-Goal Attribute Scales provided the basisfor the three-item measure of role clarity ( =.73). Tese three itemscaptured the extent to which employees were clear about what they

Table 1 CFA Results: Standardized Factor Loadings

ItemsStandardized

Factor Loading ( )Role claricationMy supervisor clearly expresses work expectations to me. .78My supervisor keeps me in the loop about issues that

affect my work. .76

I am told by my immediate supervisor when I do a good job. .70My supervisor properly instructs me regarding how to do my

job. .83

Role clarityI know exactly what I am supposed to do on my job. .66I understand fully which of my job duties are more impor-

tant than others. .64

My responsibilities at work are very clear and specic. .78Work satisfactionI am very satised with the kind of work that I do. .80At the end of the day, I feel good about the work that I do

here. .82


5/11


group variances with an expected variance under the null hypoth-esis of no agreement. wo main advantages in using ther wg indexare that (1) it does not depend on the between-groups varianceand thus is particularly useful when the group means are restrictedin their range, and (2) it provides an agreement measure for eachgroup rather than one summary for the entire sample (Cohen,Doveh, and Eick 2001).7 Although there is no clear standard foracceptable levels of inter-rater agreement, a value of .70 or higherfor the r wg index is considered desirable (Janz, Colquitt, and Noe1997). Te calculated median r

wg values for role clarication, role

clarity, and work satisfaction were .79, .86, and .70, respectively, which indicated suffi cient within-group agreement in perceptions ofthe three measures.

Descriptive Statistics and Results of Correlation Analysesable 2 provides descriptive statistics and correlation coeffi cientsof the measures included in the present study. Te mean positiontenure of employees in the offi ces was close to ve years, and thestandard deviation was 3.49 years. On average, each offi ce hadapproximately 37 employees, and 60 percent of the employees wereprofessionals. Te minimum rate of annual turnover in the offi ces

was zero; the maximum was .33. On average, 11 percent of employ-

ees from each offi ce had voluntarily left the organization by the endof 2009. As indicated in table 2, role clarication had a positivecorrelation with role clarity perceived in the offi ces (r = .49, p

th e importance of role clarifi cation in workgroups:

Documents