THE EFFECTS OF ROLE CONFLICT AND ROLE AMBIGUITY ON THE USE OF POWER, JOB SATISFACTION, AND CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS

JOHN ROBERT MOORE, Purdue University

Abstract

Role conflict and role ambiguity are typically characterized as stress producing events (Kahn & Quinn, 1970). One position particularly prone to conflict and ambiguity is that of leadership (Cooper & Marshall, 1976; Kahn & Quinn, 1970). This study was interested in the effect of role conflict and role ambiguity on supervisors' use of selected powers, their job satisfaction, and causal attributions made to subordinates. The hypotheses derived to examine the relationships of conflict and ambiguity with the variables listed above are: (1)role conflict and role ambiguity would cause harsh powers to be invoked against poor performers; (2)conflict and ambiguity would lead to low job satisfaction; (3)conflict and ambiguity would cause supervisors to attribute poor performance to internal causes; and (4)the combination of role conflict and role ambiguity would intensify the effects of either one alone. Ninety-nine college students participated as supervisors in a laboratory simulation. As supervisors, subjects were accountable to two managers and responsible for the production of two subordinates. Although the managers and the subordinates were fictional, subjects were led to believe all four positions were filled by fellow participants in the experiment. The subordinates were created such that one was a high performer and the other a low performer. Subjects were given nine specific powers to use in their capacity as supervisors. Four conditions were induced by manipulating the degree of conflict and/or ambiguity of the criteria on which the supposed evaluations and award of bonus tickets were based. The four conditions were: (1)low conflict, low ambiguity; (2)high conflict, low ambiguity; (3)low conflict, high ambiguity; and (4)high conflict, high ambiguity. The powers available to subjects were scaled in terms of their perceived harshness by a subset of subjects. In addition, the following variables were assessed by means of questionnaires: (1)perceived conflict and ambiguity; (2) affective state; (3)job satisfaction; and (4)causal attributions made to subordinates. None of the specified hypotheses were supported. However, the data revealed a strong effect for level of subordinate performance on subject behavior. High performing subjects were given more lottery tickets, dealt with less harshly, liked more, and were preferred for future work over the low performing subordinate. Mood, task difficulty, luck, and the environment were seen as influencing the poor performer's production more than the good performer's, while effort, ability, opportunity for bonus tickets, and supervisory influence were perceived as affecting the high performer's production more than the low performer's. The pattern of results was discussed in terms of (1)why the hypotheses were not supported, (2)why there was such a strong effect for level of subordinate performance, and (3)what factors must be present in a situation for psychological stress to be experienced. Implications of these findings were presented for (1)the current state of role stress research, and (2)conducting stress research in the laboratory.

Degree

Ph.D.

Subject Area

Occupational psychology

COinS