A Meta-Analysis of the Correlates of Role Conflict and Ambiguity

TLDR: In the last decade, there has been a great deal of correlational research on the relationships between perceived role ambiguity and role conflict and a host of hypothesized antecedents (such as tenure, formalization, boundary spanning) and consequences as discussed by the authors.

Abstract: The correlational literature concerning the relationships of role conflict and ambiguity to numerous hypothesized antecedents and consequences is still somewhat unclear after a decade of research Schmidt-Hunter meta-analysis procedures were applied to the results of 43 past studies in an effort to draw valid conclusions about the magnitude and direction of these relationships in the population For some correlates, apparently inconsistent research results could be ascribed largely to statistical artifacts. For other correlates, it seems that moderator research may be needed to explain conflicting results across samples In the last 12 years, there has been a great deal of correlational research on the relationships between perceived role ambiguity and role conflict and a host of hypothesized antecedents (such as tenure, formalization, boundary spanning) and consequences (such as job satisfaction, job involvement, performance, tension, propensity to leave the job). Although nearly all studies have been crosssectional, one laboratory study did find that role conflict caused a host of dysfunctional affective and behavioral outcomes (Manning, Ismail, & Sherwood, 1981) Thus, the consequences of these two types of role stress have potentially important cost implications for organizations. Whereas the costs of turnover and substandard performance are obvious, the true cost of attitudinal variables is just beginning to be understood (Cascio, 1982; Mirvis & Lawler, 1977). Therefore, efforts to obtain a better understanding of role conflict, role ambiguity, and their correlates are certainly justified.