CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM

This study will longitudinally evaluate the impact of role ambiguity and organizational structure on the performance of self-directed work teams (SDWTs) and more traditional hierarchically organized workers. Globalization and other competitive pressures have influenced organizations to adopt structures with team-based attributes (Heckscher, 1994; Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1994; McCalman, 1996; Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990). It was thought here that this movement away from traditional hierarchical structures might temporarily increase role ambiguity levels and have a negative impact on performance. DeSanctis & Poole (1997) argue that the membership, roles, and relationships, even if pre-specified to the teams, are likely to shift and to shift frequently over time as a result of responses to environmental demands. To date only one study (Goldstein, 1996) has examined the potential impact of role ambiguity on groups, finding that experimental groups that received unclear role information experienced group role ambiguity and reduced performance.

Dunphy & Bryant (1996) have indicated that few studies have measured the link between performance and team concepts. They note that performance is the “ultimate criterion” that managers should be employing before making structural changes to their organizations. Forte, Hoffman, Lamont, & Brockmann (2000) also argue that two issues resulting from changes to the external environment are organizational form or structure and linkages to the resulting organizational performance remain unresolved by the literature. They recommend that future studies evaluate organizational structure “…during the change from one [organizational] form to another…” (p.771). They believe that further examination of the transition period from one form to another would provide useful insights and enhance our knowledge of the process of organizational change. DeSanctis & Poole (1997) echo the need to examine organizations in transition and to sharpen the focus on teams by stating that, “….less attention has been given to understanding transitions in form at the work group or team level” (p. 157). The current study attempts to fill this void in the literature by longitudinally examining an organization, which has moved a portion of its operations from a hierarchical structure to self-directed work teams.

Bray & Brawley (2002) call for further study of the interactive relationships between role variables and performance and support the adoption of prospective designs, noting “Although experimental research may ultimately provide the most valid test of causation, prospective designs allow for greater insight into the potential effects of role perceptions on performance” (p. 250). Nygaard & Dahlstrom (2002) indicate “Future efforts can augment our research by longitudinally tracking responses to stress” (p. 78). The current study attempts to address these and the above deficiencies in the role stress and performance literature.

Problem Background

The issues of role ambiguity and work group performance can be traced back to the Hawthorne studies completed in the 1930s (Roethlisberger & Dickenson, 1939). Additionally, the seminal work of Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, (1964), recognized that individuals and work groups may be impacted by role ambiguity and that performance could suffer as a result. These studies hint at the possible effects of role ambiguity and work group attitudes and behaviors on performance.

The development of contingency theories of organizational design, many firms have adopted team-oriented structures to provide a flexible workforce and flexible organization (Malone, Morton, & Halperin, 1996; Porter, 1991). With changes in organizational structure come additional burdens to the organization, which may impact ambiguity levels and ultimately performance. While recognizing the benefits of team-based structures, Ford & Randolph (1992), caution, for instance, that these benefits may come with increases in ambiguity in intragroup communications, and confusion in roles and responsibilities.

The study of teams has dramatically increased in the past ten years (1992 – 2002), while the study of role ambiguity has lagged since the comprehensive review of the literature by Van Sell, Brief, and Schuler (1981) and the meta analysis examining role ambiguity in work settings conducted by Jackson & Schuler, (1985). With 21st century pressures impacting organizations, the combination of these two important considerations (role ambiguity and team performance) and their potential impact on firm performance has yet to be researched adequately.

Literature Review

Roles and Role Ambiguity

Researchers have a defined a role as a set of expectations applied to a person who holds a specific position that are determined by both the person or role incumbent and role senders both inside and outside the organization (Banton, 1965). Other researchers have described the role as a basic building block of a social system, and organizations as systems of roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978). With the roles that individuals play within organizations making up a critical component of their identity and ability to perform, one would think that it is important for the organization to assure that the roles are clearly defined.

Role ambiguity has been defined as a lack of clear information about job responsibilities and expectations, including what should be done (expectation ambiguity), when it should be done (priority ambiguity), how it should be done (process ambiguity), and behaviors that should be exhibited (behavior ambiguity) (Kahn, et al., 1964; Sawyer, 1992; Singh, Verbke, & Rhoads, 1996). For those workers experiencing high levels of role ambiguity, the situation can be difficult, being in a place where nothing connects with nothing.

Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite, & Zenger, & Wellins (1990) offer the imagery of Proteus in explaining the impact of role ambiguity on newly formed teams. Proteus was in Greek mythology the prophetic old man of the sea and the shepherd of sea animals such as seals. He was subject to Poseidon. Proteus knew all things--past, present, and future--but disliked telling what he knew. Those who wanted information from him had to catch him sleeping and bind him. He would try to escape by changing his form, but if a captor held him fast he gave the wished-for answer and plunged into the sea. The transformation of organizational structure is similar to the story of Proteus in that changes in structure may lead to role ambiguity created by the organization.

Organizational Structure

Clearly, the application of contingency theories of organizational structure and the present movement to team based organizational structures in response to external pressures has impacted the roles of individuals functioning within organizations (Engdahl, Keating, & Aupperle, 2000). The present study examines one such instance where an organization has adopted a self-directed team philosophy to improve customer service, product quality, and performance.

Self-directed work teams have been adopted as an organizing system by firms seeking to, among other reasons; more closely match their environments (Malone, et al. 1996). SDWTs are permanent, interdependent, relatively small, highly autonomous work groups that take complete responsibility for a product, project, or service (Becker-Reems, 1994; Salem, 1992). As firms adopt these organizational designs, the basic framework of the hierarchical (top down) structure is typically abandoned in favor of flexibility.

The question these organizational shifts raise is - Have organizations inadvertently increased role ambiguity levels in their rush to adopt these new organizational paradigms? This question is of particular importance because many organizations are shifting to team-based approaches and role ambiguity, on its own, has been linked to many negative outcomes such as lower job satisfaction, frustration, anxiety, propensity to leave, and reduced individual and group productivity (Bedian & Armenakis, 1981; Van Sell, et al., 1981).

The study of role ambiguity has not kept up with the tremendous changes in organizations over the past 20 years. As more and more organizations have adopted a self-directed work team philosophy and flattened their organizational structure, it is important to revisit this critical measure of work and role stress (role ambiguity). Only one study (Goldstein, 1996) has examined role ambiguity within the context of work groups. There, it was found that, group level role ambiguity does exist and it can be moderated by task interdependence for groups with high levels of interdependence. Goldstein further found that group level role ambiguity lead to deteriorated group performance. The present study will expand upon the existing knowledge by identifying the stage of team development that exists within the particular organization studied, measure role ambiguity levels longitudinally and attempt to determine the impact of the role ambiguity and the stage of team development on performance measures.

Purpose of the Study

The present study will be a quasi-experimental systematic assessment of role ambiguity, organizational structure and performance as groups of workers shift from a hierarchical organizational structure to a team based approach. The study will be longitudinal in nature and employ surveys of perceived role ambiguity, group cohesion, and intragroup communication. In addition, objective indicators of current performance will be evaluated as well as archival data analysis. The study attempts to accomplish four objectives. First an evaluation of role ambiguity will be conducted within real world team settings. Second, an attempt will be made to show that a relationship exists between role ambiguity and work group performance. Third, an attempt will be made to show that a relationship exists between organizational structure and its components, such as communication, cohesion, the stage of team development, and work group performance. Fourth, cultural interpretations of role ambiguity may be explored.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

One of the organizations studied in this project employs different philosophies for the structuring of its two shifts of workers who produce original equipment side and rear windows for automobiles. The first shift (day shift) is organized in a traditional hierarchical fashion with workers reporting to front-line managers and employing strictly defined job descriptions. The second shift (evening shift) began moving to a self-directed work team philosophy in the summer of 2001. First an attempt will be made to determine baseline performance by evaluating the productivity levels for each shift in the 6 months prior to the structural changes. At the outset of the formal data collection portion of the study, the second shift (teams group) has completed stage 2 (State of confusion/Role upheaval) of the work team development process as defined by Orsburn, et al. (1990). It is expected that by the end of the data collection process for this project in April 2002 that the teams group will have entered stage 3 (Leader-centered teams/Reliance on the team leader) of the work team development process. In addition, the second shift employs a few workers with Hispanic cultural backgrounds. An additional organization has been recruited to provide the baseline role ambiguity data for a team entering stage 2 (the loss of initial optimism about the structural changes and the beginnings of significant role upheaval) of the development process to be compared to the hierarchical team, and the stage 3 team.

The particular research questions for this study are the following:

1. What is the relationship between role ambiguity and performance?

2. What is the relationship between role ambiguity and organizational structure?

3. What is the relationship between organizational structure and performance?

4. What is the relationship between the stage of team development and role ambiguity?

5. What is the relationship between the stage of team development and performance?

6. What is the relationship between group cohesion levels reported by teams vs. the traditional hierarchy and performance?

7. What is the relationship between intragroup communication levels reported by teams vs. the traditional hierarchy and performance?

The null and alternate hypotheses for the current study include:

H1_o: There is no relationship between role ambiguity and performance.

H1_a: As role ambiguity levels increase, work group performance declines.

H2_o: There is no difference in role ambiguity levels between hierarchically organized and team based workers.

H2_a: Role ambiguity levels are higher for workers in the initial stages of team development than workers who are organized hierarchically.

H3_o: There is no difference in performance levels between hierarchically organized and team based workers.

H3_a: Work group performance is lower for groups in the initial stages of team development than groups that are organized hierarchically.

H4_o: There is no difference in role ambiguity levels for teams at differing stages of development.

H4_a: As teams progress through the stages of development, role ambiguity levels decrease as the team develops.

H5_o: There is no difference in performance levels for teams at differing stages of development.

H5_a: As teams progress through the stages of development, work group performance increases as the team develops.

H6_o: There is no relationship between group cohesion and role ambiguity.

H6_a: As group cohesion levels increase, role ambiguity levels decrease.

H7_o: There is no relationship between intragroup communication and role ambiguity.

H7_a: As intragroup communication levels increase, role ambiguity levels decrease.

Limitations/Delimitations

The study is limited in several ways. First, the quasi-experimental design within two organizational environments severely restrict the generalizability of the findings. Second, the nature of the research (longitudinal) may not permit generalizing the findings to other settings. Third, further analysis is needed on the pre-existing differences between the groups with respect to training and development activities, which could impact the attitudes, and behaviors of the participants. Additional analyses may also be needed to help to determine the potential moderating effects of feedback, social support, and participative decision-making on the need for clarity attitudes and the consequent respondent perceptions of ambiguity. Finally, the researcher in this study may have impacted the results through interactions with the participants over the course of the study.

Definitions

(1) “Group Cohesion” is a measure of the attraction to the group, as a result of relationships and friendships with other members of the group (Zaccaro, 1991).

(2) “Empowerment” is “people’s belief in their capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control over given events” (Ozer & Bundura, 1990, p. 472).

(3) “Intragroup Communication” is defined as part of the conceptual definition of social support and it has been shown that intragroup communications provide opportunities for role clarification (Fenlason & Beehr, 1994).

(4) “Organizational structure” is defined as either hierarchical or team-based structures designated as conservative and dissipative self-organization. van Olffen & Romme (1995) distinguish between them stating, “The former (conservative/hierarchical) leads to rather stable, specialistic systems, whereas the latter (self-directed team based) leads to continuously changing generalistic systems”.

(5) “Performance” is a measurement of both quality and quantity produced and evaluated on a per worker basis.

(6) “Role” is the boundaries and sets of expectations applied to role incumbents of a particular position, which are determined by the role incumbent and the role senders within and beyond the organization’s boundaries (Banton, 1965; Katz & Kahn, 1966).

(7) “Role ambiguity” is the lack of clear information about job responsibilities and expectations, which is required for adequate performance of a role (Kahn, et al., 1964; Klenke-Hamel & Mathieu, 1990; Lyons, 1971).

(8) “Role clarity” is the subjective feeling of having as much role relevant information as a person would like to have (Lyons, 1971).

(9) “Self-directed work team” is a group of highly trained employees (typically 6 – 18) who are responsible for an entire work process that results in a finished good or service (Orsburn et al., 1990).

(10) “Stress” has been defined as “an individuals’ reactions to the characteristics of the work environment which appear threatening” (Jamal, 1984, p. 2). Stress has also be operationalized as “environmental conditions or situations, which if left unmodified, are perceived by the focal person as leading to some undesirable state of affairs” (Parasuraman & Alutto, 1981, pp. 48-49).

(11) “Task interdependence” is the extent to which team members cooperate and work interactively to complete tasks (Stewart & Barrick, 2000).

Importance of the Study

This study is the first to empirically examine the effects of individual role ambiguity on self-directed work team performance employing a quasi-experimental design. At present we know little about the relationship between role ambiguity and job performance (Jamal, 1985; Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986). While organizational change has been linked to increased role stress, the connections between organizational change (types of organizational structures especially), role ambiguity, and performance have not been examined carefully in concert (Cooper & Payne, 1978).

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Dunphy & Bryant (1996) have indicated that few studies have measured the performance of teams. Yet they note that performance is the “ultimate criterion” that managers should be employing before making structural changes to their organizations. They suggest a benefit cost model for determining the utility of teams as an organizing philosophy. They further suggest that performance outcomes be evaluated such as decreased costs, productivity, increased quality, customer responsiveness, and strategic flexibility. Similarly, DeSanctis & Poole (1997) believe that firms undergoing significant structural redesigns must take the time to allow the emergent structure and identity of the teams to form before significant organizational outcomes can be expected. The present study will examine some of these issues.

For practitioners, the present study will highlight some issues of importance when considering modifications to organizational structures, ones that may impact roles and role ambiguity levels. Hopefully, the study will shed some light on the relationships between ambiguity and performance. This should provide practitioners with information necessary to assist in their decision to move to team based organizational structures, and to be ready for the possible initial increases in role ambiguity and decreases in performance that may result in the short-term. Further, the study may provide justifications for sticking with the team-based concept during the difficult transition periods (stages 1 – 3 of team development).

For researchers, the present study will hopefully reintroduce the role ambiguity construct and present it in a different light. Role ambiguity has traditionally been studied within hierarchical organizational structures, which have focused strictly on the reduction of ambiguity levels. As noted, team-based structures may increase role ambiguity levels at least temporarily, but ultimately may lead to increased organizational performance. The study may give rise to a new appreciation of the role ambiguity construct and raise its level of importance as relates to what many modern global organizations, are experimenting with building teams. At a minimum, the study should shed some light on organizational upheaval, in the same way that the Hawthorne studies caused researchers to critically examine worker input and output, under changing organizational characteristics.

Further, the study should provoke thoughts about future research possibilities - exploring the impact of organizational strategies on employees and the organization. In evaluating the possible relationships between role ambiguity and intragroup communication and group cohesion, the study will answer the call provided by Tubre & Collins (2000), who indicated that research into moderators of role ambiguity would greatly enhance of understanding of role concepts. Finally, even if the study is not particularly successful in answering the research questions, it should highlight the need for further study of role ambiguity, given the many uncertainties organizations and their member’s experience.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Role theory defines a “role” as the boundaries and sets of expectations applied to role incumbents of a particular position, which are determined by the role incumbent and the role senders within and beyond the organization’s boundaries (Banton, 1965; Katz & Kahn, 1966). According to Dougherty & Pritchard (1985), role theory provides us with a conceptual framework for the study of behavior in organizations. They argue that roles “involve patterns of creating products as opposed to behaviors or acts” (p. 143). Dougherty & Pritchard (1985) further state that the relevance of a role depends upon the importance placed on the product or outcome by the evaluator or observer, typically a person’s supervisor. Strategy and organizational structure have been shown to impact roles and role perceptions (Kahn, et al. 1964; Oswald, Mossholder, & Harris, 1997). Forte, Hoffman, Lamont, & Brockmann (2000) claim that role ambiguity may result from changes to the external environment and the subsequent reactions that impact organizational form or structure. They further state that the literature has not responded to questions about whether linkages between organizational structure modifications are reflected in resulting organizational performance.

This chapter will organize and review the literature on role theory, role stressors especially role ambiguity, potential moderators of role ambiguity, organizational structure, performance, and self-directed work teams. Each section will provide definitions of key terms and background material from the literature to form of an information infrastructure that will provide justification for the study undertaken. A combination of seminal works and the most recent 21st century research is reviewed to examine the origins of the research in this vein and to explore where the current research proposes to take us. Finally, the chapter poses questions for the future of organizational studies in this domain.

Role Ambiguity

Dougherty & Pritchard (1985) define role ambiguity as “uncertainty about the products to produce or their importance for the role and one’s evaluation” (p. 143). Other role researchers have similar views of role ambiguity and have defined it as the lack of clear information about job responsibilities and expectations, which are required by the role incumbent for adequate performance of a role (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Klenke-Hamel & Mathieu, 1990; Lyons, 1971). Kahn, et al. (1964) argue that role stressors emerge from the social environment created by organizations. They view organizations as networks of interrelated roles with role senders coming from various places within the organization. Top management, immediate supervisors, co-workers, and team members may all serve the role sending function for a given role incumbent (Kahn, et al., 1964). Peterson, et al. (1995) expand the definition of role ambiguity to include uncertainty about what actions to take to fulfill a role. The role ambiguity construct has been a much-studied component of role theory. However, to date only one study (Goldstein, 1996) has examined the potential impact of role ambiguity on self-directed work teams (SDWTs).

Ritzer (1996) maintains that society is continually moving toward greater proliferation of roles and the institutionalization of roles. Katz & Kahn (1978) describe the role as “the building block of social systems and the summation of the requirements with which such systems confront their members as individuals” (pp. 219 – 220). They further argue that a shift in role senders, which occurs when an organization changes strategy or structure, and for example, moves to a team oriented structure and the team supplants the supervisor - is equivalent to a change in role identity, which one may guess impacts perceptions of role ambiguity.

Faced with changing roles, new and varied job responsibilities, and technological advances, a worker or role incumbent finds himself or herself in ambiguous situations. Poorly written or detailed job descriptions, unclear assignments, and mixed messages from superiors can all impact perceptions of role ambiguity (Huber, 1981). Bushe, Havlovic, & Coetzer (1996) espouse ensuring that clear boundaries between people and roles exist. They state, “as organizations de-structure to allow for greater initiative and innovation by employees and less reliance on rules and procedures, boundaries become fuzzy, and uncertainty increases and so does free-floating anxiety (anxiety that cannot be easily attributable to any one cause)” (p. 46). Similarly, Hirschhorn and Gilmore (1992) identified three key boundary areas necessary for people to be able to work together without being overwhelmed by ambiguity. The boundaries include: (a) authority boundaries – Who is in charge? (b) task boundaries – Who is supposed to do what? (c) political boundaries – Who wants what?

Newton & Keenan (1987) share that “a research strategy which deliberately sets out to differentiate between varying forms of role stress may be of particular benefit to our understanding of the relationship between organizational, interpersonal, and personal factors, and stress and strain” (p. 364). The multidimensional approaches (where the various attributes of the variable have been determined by factor analysis) to the study of role ambiguity began with Bedeian and Armenakis (1981) and have continued with Sawyer (1992) and Singh, Verbeke, and Rhoads (1996). Based on their findings and the foundation provided by the classic works (such as Kahn, et al. 1964; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970), there are four widely accepted dimensions to role ambiguity, which may be experienced by the role incumbents and are based on the role incumbents perception. The dimensions include: (a) expectation ambiguity - What is expected? What should I be doing? (b) process ambiguity - How do I get things done? How do I achieve organizational objectives? (c) priority ambiguity – When should things be done and in what order? (d) behavior ambiguity - How am I expected to act in various situations? What behaviors will lead to the needed or desired outcomes?

The boundaries defined by Hirschhorn & Gilmore (1992) correspond closely with the dimensions of role ambiguity that have been produced by the aforementioned researchers in the area of role theory. Sawyer (1992) has even hypothesized that different types of role ambiguity may have different causes, and Singh & Rhoads (1991) believe that role ambiguity is more amenable to managerial "intervention" and structural accommodation than many other organizational issues. In spite of the past research into role stress (including role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload), our understanding of the relationships among and between role stressors, reactions to role stressors and the possible outcomes remain limited (Perrewe & Ganster, 1989).

Consequences of Role Ambiguity

Bedian & Armenakis (1981) have established a causal relationship between role ambiguity and increased tension, frustration, anxiety, and propensity to leave. Lower job satisfaction has also been linked to role ambiguity by Pearson (1991), who found a causal link with a longitudinal study of railroad workers in Australia. Jackson & Schuler (1985) suggested, “there is a need to examine the antecedents and consequences of role ambiguity and role conflict in organizations using causal designs” (p. 45). It should be noted that although most studies have found a relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction, there are a few notable exceptions in the literature, specifically (Brief & Aldag, 1976; Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1974; Keller, 1975; Tosi, 1971; Tosi & Tosi 1970). These mixed findings leave some unanswered questions about the relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction. Part of this problem may be related to the experimental designs used. It is disappointing to note that with the exceptions highlighted above, and Miles (1975) and Miles & Perrault (1976), that correlational designs are typically employed by researchers making the issue and direction of causality difficult to determine.

Role ambiguity has further been found to be correlated with decreased motivation, quality of work life, organizational commitment, individual and group productivity, and an increase in withdrawal behaviors (Blau, 1981; Dougherty & Pritchard, 1985; Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Miles, 1975; Rizzo, et al., 1970; and Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler 1981). Organizational commitment is an important variable that impacts performance and it has also been shown to be a moderator between role ambiguity and performance (Jamal, 1985). Individuals who are committed to the organization demonstrate a willingness to provide significant efforts on behalf of the organization and accept and support the values and goals of the organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). It should be noted that Schuler (1980) points out that many factors including abilities, experience, training, and values may impact a role incumbents perceptions of and responses to role stress.

The study of roles and role ambiguity are critical for organizations, especially in light of issues such as diversity, globalization, competitive pressures, and the fragmentation of consumer markets. Hofstede (1980), for instance, echoes these same concerns regarding uncertainty in global organizations by describing the rationale for his uncertainty avoidance construct, which he described as "(in)tolerance for ambiguity". According to Hofstede (1980), "The concept of uncertainty is often linked to the concept of environment; the "environment" which usually is taken to include everything not under direct control of the organization is a source of uncertainty for which the organization tries to compensate" (p. 155).

A major question for role stress researchers is: Does role stress impact performance? This failure to link role stressors such as role ambiguity to performance in the literature is highlighted by Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning (1986) who state “We know relatively little, however, about the relation of stress to job performance” (p. 618). It would be beneficial, then, to evaluate the impacts of role stressors on work group performance. Role ambiguity may well be an organizational phenomenon that lends itself to managerial intervention (Singh & Rhoads, 1991). These interventions may lead to enhanced individual and organizational performance at little or no cost to the firm.

Managers and workers need role clarity to ensure that they are working on the things that will ultimately make the firm successful. Role incumbents who are experiencing role ambiguity may be working on the wrong things (based on the organization’s mission and objectives) and are probably unaware that they are doing so (Van Sell, et al., 1981). Singh & Bhandarker (1983) take this a step further by stating that “Managerial role clarity is viewed as one of the basic requirements for organizational effectiveness.” (p. 50). They further state “Managers suffering from role ambiguity are invariably observed to be pre-occupied with trivial organizational chores.” (p. 35). Thus, based on the concepts underlying role theory, high levels of ambiguity will likely reduce the satisfaction levels that a role incumbent has with his role, and will increase anxiety, distort reality, and the role incumbent will likely perform less effectively (Rizzo, et al., 1970).

Role Clarity

Role clarity is defined as the subjective feeling of having as much role relevant information as a person would like to have (Lyons, 1971). Clarity of goals and paths have been associated with greater satisfaction with tasks in business and health care settings (House, 1971; Lyons, 1971). Moving from a state of role ambiguity to a state of role clarity has been described as role clarification (Smith & Brannick, 1990). Smith & Brannick (1990) even found that participative decision making processes facilitate role clarification through the role incumbent’s ability to communicate about and negotiate the role expectations to be fulfilled. Expectancy theory has also been attached to role clarification activities. Gladstein (1984) indicates that “Rewards, in the form of pay and recognition, had their largest influence on how the group leader behaved and how the group set itself up to work.” (p. 514). She even observed that rewards were positively related to goal clarity, role clarity, and performance.

Is clarity a general need of members of organizations? This question has tempered the ambiguity debate throughout its history. Some researchers such as Huber (1981) and Selye (1976), have suggested that the absence of ambiguity may not be a desirable objective in all cases. Other researchers (Singh, 1998) have abandoned the linear view that any and all ambiguity is harmful in favor of a curvilinear view of role ambiguity and its possible impact on performance. This perspective is based on the work of Yerkes & Dodson (1908), commonly known as the Yerkes-Dodson Law. This group of researchers has posited an inverted-U curvilinear relationship between ambiguity and performance, to support this non-linear contention. Similarly, Walker & Guest (1952) have suggested that there may be a point where tasks become so narrowly defined and structured that they can become unbearable.

Consider a scenario where you are invited to add 2 + 2 on a specific form with a specific procedure for writing the numbers and turning the pages, with the expectation of an answer of 4 every time, and a quota for the number of times to complete the procedure during the course of the day. Would this be desirable work? The research evaluating the possible curvilinear aspects of role ambiguity would seem to support the idea that role ambiguity, satisfaction, and/or performance indeed may not be linear constructs. Researchers with this view suggest that the absence of ambiguity should not necessarily be the objective, but the application of the appropriate amount of ambiguity for the position in question, the personality of the role incumbent, the organizational level of the position, and the situation should all be considered in the way in which the work is conducted. This situational approach is supported by the work of Bedian, Mossholder, & Armenakis (1983). They hypothesize that three levels of analysis be studied to understand the impacts of role stress. The three levels suggested are the individual, group, and organizational domains.

Similar to Lyons ideas, Parasuraman (1981) defines role clarity as the extent to which individuals receive and understand information needed to do their jobs. He explored relationships between specific organizational characteristics and the degree of role clarity present. He found that formal policies were not clearly understood, but that the purchasing employees surveyed had subjectively established their own informal role definitions, which they were much clearer about. He suggests “the actions of purchasing professionals may be guided to a greater extent by their own informal role definitions than by formal policies” (p. 4). He further suggests that the firm clearly communicate formal policies in an attempt to ensure that the informal role perceptions are not in conflict with the formal policies. Parasuranman emphasized that “given the importance of achieving high role clarity….firms should take concrete steps to clarify their roles” (p. 6) and that “Role clarity has a strong positive association with job satisfaction” (p. 7).

Dougherty & Pritchard (1985) also support the use of specific training programs for role clarity. They maintain, “Subordinates and superiors discuss their perceptions of the relevance of status reports, oral and written communications, etc., for the performance of the subordinates job” (p. 154). They further conclude that an examination of disagreements on these items would be useful in reducing ambiguity levels by resolving the disagreements through face-to-face discussions between the supervisor and subordinates or through group discussions for teams.

Measures of Role Ambiguity

A role ambiguity scale (known as the Rizzo, House & Lirtzman or RHL scale) developed by Rizzo, et al. (1970) has been the most widely used measure (used in approximately 85% of the studies according to Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Tubre & Collins, 2000) by researchers studying role stress (role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload). The RHL questionnaire consists of 30 items, 15 of which dealt with role ambiguity and 15 with role conflict. In the original study, subjects were requested to respond to each role item, indicating the degree to which the condition existed for him, on a seven-point scale ranging from very false to very true (Rizzo, et al. 1970). According to Schuler, Aldag, and Brief (1977) the RHL scales have been shown to have sufficient reliability and construct validity to warrant continued use. In current usage, respondents are typically given five alternatives ranging from "Never" to "Nearly all of the time" with a Likert type scale. The reported Cronbach alpha levels for the scale have been reported as ranging from .65 to .82. Construct validity of the RHL scale has been demonstrated by Schuler, Aldag, and Brief (1977) and House, Schuler, and Levanoni (1983).

The primary instrument used to measure role clarity constructs was developed and tested by Lyons (1971). The Role Clarity Index (a = .70) is composed of four five-alternative items ranging from "Never" to "Nearly all of the time" and the Need-for-Clarity Index (a = .82) consists of four questions, each again with five-alternatives ranging from "Not important at all" to "Very important". Construct validity of this instrument has been demonstrated by Ivancevich and Donnelly (1974) and Miles and Petty (1975).

The RHL scale has come under attack more recently due to its one-dimensional nature and its linear view of role ambiguity. According to King and King (1990), despite there widespread use, the RHL measures have shortcomings because the scale items (1) lack clarity and precision, (2) ignore the multidimensionality of the underlying construct, (3) fail to represent the breadth of role concepts, and (4) have poor discriminability. In fact, the RHL scale has seen diminished usage recently with the development of multidimensional measurement tools. Tools that consider the multidimensional aspects of role ambiguity (by examining role ambiguity’s component parts – ambiguity regarding expectations, priorities, processes, and behaviors) have been developed and used by Sawyer (1992) and Singh and Rhoads (1991). Of course, replication of their work and further validation of their tools is needed before their use can be totally advocated.

Role Ambiguity and Performance

Peters (1992) claims that the successful manager should balance ambiguity and uncertainty in organizations with the need for outstanding service. Indeed, Locke & Somers (1987) state “it could be argued that making clear to subordinates what is expected, getting them committed, giving them feedback on where they stand, showing confidence in them and rewarding good performance represent many of the essential activities of an effective leader.” The United States Air Force leader reviewed in their study explained to his subordinates ‘here is what I want you to do; it is important that you do it. Here is how you are doing now. I know you can do better, here is how’, and if they improved performance ‘good work’. These communications by the leader provided the what, the why, the how, and reinforcement to remove ambiguity for the subordinates, allowing them to focus their energies on process improvement. The positive effect on performance for individuals and organizations, through the establishment of specific, clear goals has been shown in over 100 experimental studies (Locke & Latham, 1984; Locke & Somers, 1987).

Inevitably, we seem to return to a position of ultimately attempting to determine whether or not the presence of ambiguity should be considered a "bad" thing. Ambiguity may be both "good" (resulting in productive stress), also called eustress by Selye (1976) and "bad" (typically resulting in too much stress which results in dysfunction), also known as distress (Selye, 1976). Along this continuum, one has to wonder again if too little ambiguity may be stress provoking. Utilizing the Kahn et al. (1964) work, Jamal (1984) defines stress as “an individuals’ reactions to the characteristics of the work environment which appear threatening” (p. 2). Parasuraman & Alutto (1981) operationalized stress as “environmental conditions or situations, which if left unmodified, are perceived by the focal person as leading to some undesirable state of affairs” (pp. 48-49). This definition suggests a continuum perspective also. Similarly, Cooper & Marshall (1977) take a more multidimensional approach by identifying five categories of intraorganizational stress - including factors intrinsic to the job, role in the organization, relationships within the organization, career development, and organizational structure and climate.

In order to more clearly specify what job performance is, Jamal (1984) defines job performance as “an activity in which an individual is able to accomplish successfully the task/goal assigned to him, subject to the normal constraint of the reasonable utilization of available resources” (p. 2). Jamal (1985) measured job performance by collecting data from individual’s immediate supervisors on quantity of performance, quality of performance, and effort exerted at the job.

As the concept of role ambiguity, and its effect on performance, is considered to be highly individual in nature, we must attempt to determine the point at which role ambiguity may be associated with distress. One avenue to consider is to evaluate an individual’s need for clarity. According to Huber (1981) stress is beneficial but only in moderation. At moderate levels, stress energizes, allowing individuals to reach their peak of productivity. Role stressors affect people differently, so it is difficult to tell how much stress is too much stress, as a result of role ambiguity, for a specific individual. She states, “Depending on individual coping mechanisms, past experiences, and stress tolerance, one person may be able to function well under conditions that would be considered dysfunctional to another person” (p. 4). Behavioral changes due to stress can have dramatic impacts on productivity (Huber, 1981). Unfortunately, for individuals and the organization, the behavioral changes may pass unnoticed and therefore the reduced productivity may not be noted as well. But too much or too little stress often results in dysfunctional behavior, including tardiness, absenteeism, ineffectiveness, and sometimes even complete task failure (Huber, 1981).

The curvilinear (inverted-U shaped) model of role ambiguity postulates that an intermediate level of stress is optimal for performance, because the individual is engaged and able to focus energy on the desired performance. At lower levels of stress, the individual may not be engaged and may not exhibit optimal performance. At higher levels of stress, an individual may devote resources to coping strategies, which may draw resources from efforts to perform, resulting in poor performance. Anderson (1976) further clarifies these claims by stating “This (inverted-U) hypothesis assumes that a threatening or stressful stimulus increases performance effectiveness to a certain point, and thereafter “stress overload” develops, which acts to the detriment of performance” (p. 32).

Anderson (1976) also observed the inverted-U between role ambiguity and performance, using the Subjective Stress Scale, not the more commonly used scale developed by Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman (1970). He stated, “The curve is a good approximation of the hypothesized inverted-U function with the exception of the high stress area of the curve. Here performance tended to be average as opposed to the decline in performance suggested by the theoretical model” (p. 32). He also suggested two remedies for role incumbents in the high stress portion of the curve, one through counseling provided by the organization, and two, by aiding individuals in the employment of coping mechanisms. Jamal (1984), on the other hand, found that role ambiguity demonstrated a negative non-linear relationship with performance and motivation. Dougherty & Pritchard (1985) believe that role ambiguity may have an impact on performance and should be measured using specific job products as essential outcomes of organizational roles. Anderson (1976) concludes his work by stating “In a society in which members are subjected to ever-increasing stress levels from various sources, the “management” of stress is a critical area, especially with regard to performance” (p. 34).

Moderators of Role Ambiguity

Personality

Spector & O’Connell (1994) found that personality variables such as negative affectivity, locus of control, and type A behavior were significant predictors of self-reported role ambiguity and other forms of role stress. Ho (1995) found similar results with Type A executives reporting role ambiguity. She found that personality type was related to perceptions of stress. Type A executives reported higher levels of work overload, role ambiguity, and fewer relationships with colleagues than the Type B participants. The relationships here may not be simple ones, for instance, personality characteristics may be shaped by workplace expectations and opportunities that can differ for men and women in ostensibly similar jobs (Kanter, 1977). The roles that managers expect their employees to adopt can also have an impact on the resulting expectations of employees and ultimately affect their opportunities for advancement.

It has been suggested that the type of person who is attracted to boundary-spanning positions has higher tolerances for ambiguity based on his or her personality (Goldman & Kahnweiler, 2000). Some have even offered that executives in these positions have high role ambiguity because they can tolerate it, and that they actually may prefer it. Newton & Keenan (1987) found, however, a negative correlation between Type A personality and role ambiguity. They state that “Type A’s will actively seek to reduce the objective level of ambiguity simply because their sense of control is threatened by any ambiguity or uncertainty in their environment” (p. 362). This supports the need for reducing role ambiguity for certain personality types (Type A), for those who may possess a potentially high need for clarity.

Cultural Differences

Role ambiguity has been related to Hofstede’s (1980) construct of uncertainty avoidance by Peterson, et al. (1995). Hofstede (1994) defined uncertainty avoidance as “the degree to which people in a country (culture) prefer structured over unstructured situations”. (pp. 5-6). This line of research supports the contention that ethnic differences, with respect to need for clarity and tolerance for ambiguity, exist. Recently, due to the efforts of international trade organizations and nations with free trade agendas, there has been a steady increase in multinational organizations and foreign direct investments as well as the frequency with which firms conduct business in countries outside their home country (Domke-Damonte, 2001; McCalman, 1996). One has to wonder, then, how this mixing of cultures affects the roles of individuals.

Culture has been shown to impact organizations and interpersonal communications, which affect ambiguity levels and tolerance for ambiguity (Hofstede, 1980). The construct of role ambiguity has been shown to have relationships with several of the cultural variables that Hofstede proposed and measured. Specifically, uncertainty avoidance may be related to roles and role ambiguity, and to a lesser extent, individualism and power distance.

In addition, comparative studies can be used to develop predictions about the ways in which people and managers from different cultures handle uncertainty. This is supported by Shenkar & Zeira (1992) who stated that "The examination of role conflict and role ambiguity theories in a multinational context can be fruitful for at least two reasons: First, it may serve to extend the scope and relevance of role theory beyond the uninational corporation. Second, such examination is likely to increase the theoretical depth of international management studies, and therefore our knowledge of an increasingly popular form of organization." (p. 55). An assessment of an employee's need for clarity could be crucial to enhance our understanding of the importance or lack of importance of clear role communications.

A recent study of role ambiguity across cultural boundaries conducted by Bauer & Spenser (2001) contradicts the finding that uncertainty avoidance behaviors are different for people in the United States and Germany. This study showed no significant difference between the self-reported levels of role ambiguity for groups in each of these countries. This finding may be due to international acceptance of management models or the lack of significant distinction between the perceptions of ambiguity by the German and American participants included in the study.

Gender Differences

Martocchio & O’Leary (1989) found no significant difference in occupational stress (stress resulting from their employment, including role stress) levels between men and women. McDonald & Korabik (1991) on the other hand, found that women reported being subjected to different types of stress than did men. The stressors studied by McDonald & Korabik were related more to role conflict than role ambiguity; however, the findings suggest that women may react differently to role ambiguity than men. Klenke-Hamel & Mathieu (1990) also found that women in four separate samples including, blue collar, secretarial staff, engineers, and university faculty, reported greater propensity to leave, greater tension, and greater job satisfaction. They feel that the apparent contradiction between increased job satisfaction and increased propensity to leave may be confounded due to non-work influences. These authors suggested that this may be due to the women in the sample. Their sample was composed of blue-collar workers, who may have been offering their families a second source of income, and that combined with multiple roles, may have increased their intentions to leave regardless of organizational considerations.

Narayanan, Menon, & Spector (1999) also note that interpersonal relationships play a greater role for women then men. They hypothesize that women in situations with interpersonal conflict would experience more stress than men. The study conducted by Narayanan, et al. (1999) demonstrated that interpersonal conflict was the most reported source of stress for the female respondents, where males felt that lack of rewards and recognition produced the most stress for them. This factor may also be related to female perceptions of self-directed work teams (SDWTs). If the groups are not functioning properly one may want to monitor the levels of interpersonal conflict and role ambiguity occurring in men and women in such settings.

Empowerment and Autonomy

Empowerment in the workplace has received increased attention among scholars and practitioners (Donovan, 1994), and a belief in the advantages of empowering workers appears to be shared by workers as well as management. Empowerment has been shown to affect managerial and organizational effectiveness (Spreitzer, 1995) and it is presently recognized as one means by which managers can effectively manage today’s organizations, which are characterized by a greater variety of influence channels, a growing reliance on horizontal structures and peer networks, a blurred distinction between managers and workers, and a diminished attachment of employees to organizations (Kanter, 1989; Pfeffer, 1994).

Empowerment is defined as “people’s belief in their capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control over given events” (Ozer & Bundura, 1990, p. 472), and it relates to a belief in self-efficacy and an expectation that effort will lead to performance. Thomas & Velthouse (1990), describe how group decision making and the sharing of responsibilities and problems openly (group effectiveness and group worth), as well as work units in which members feel trust in each other and in the group, tend to enhance members’ feelings of self-determination and competency, thereby contributing to feelings of empowerment. Empowerment may even reduce role ambiguity levels by giving employees greater control over work elements that commonly contribute to the development of role ambiguity.

Herschel & Andrews (1993) proposed that employees who feel empowered work more interactively when working in group settings than those who do not perceive themselves as being empowered. Task interdependence (working interactively) has even been shown to moderate levels of role ambiguity (Saavedra, et al., 1993; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). The implications of empowerment and autonomy, and the associated behavioral changes that may occur in work teams/groups have only begun to be examined.

Social Support

Social support has been defined as “the degree to which the person’s basic social needs are gratified through interaction with others” (Thoits, 1982, p. 147). Why does social support seem to be a moderator of role ambiguity? LaRocco, House, and French (1980) found that the availability of social support reduces strain. Social support is an adaptive coping mechanism, which individuals employ under stressful conditions (Erera, 1992). Similarly, LaRocco, et al. (1980) report that social support from co-workers results in about twice as much impact on workers’ well-being than support from their superiors. Bushe, Havlovic, and Coetzer (1995) found that an empowered work team comprised of all females reported a major increase in social support and a sense of belonging as a result of their work team experience. French and Caplan (1972) also found that social support in the form of good relations with one’s peer group was one of the most effective means for diminishing the negative effects of role stressors, including role ambiguity.

Newton & Keenan (1987) argue, however, that social support is not a buffer for stress. They believe that social support buffers or reduces the effects of stress once the stress has been perceived. They suggest that social support “acts as an antecedent, determining the extent to which stress is perceived in the first place” (p. 351).

They further indicate that the ability to confide in others is a form of social support which teams provide, which would serve to reduce overall levels of reported stress that they refer to as the strength of group based structures. In hierarchical structures the social support deemed to be most critical comes from the role incumbents immediate supervisor. Social support from superiors is also associated with less ambiguity (Newton & Keenan, 1987). Whether team members or supervisors impact ambiguity, and consequently stress, equally, is yet unknown, but one might guess that peers certainly impact their team members.

Organizational Structure and Role Ambiguity

Orton & Weick (1990) imply that loose coupling may lead researchers to study structure as something that organizations do, rather than merely as something they have. Kahn, et al. (1964) suggested that three organizational conditions significantly contribute to role ambiguity: organizational complexity, rapid organizational change, and managerial philosophies about communications.

The concept of strategic fit relates to the linking of organizational structure and perceived levels of role ambiguity. Strategic fit is defined as the fit between the organizational structure, strategy, and/or the wider environment (external fit) and the fit among the groups or units within the organization (internal fit). This implies a model in which the fit between strategy and the structure affects performance, as does the internal consistency of the structural elements (Smith & Reece, 1999). Proponents of strategic fit suggest that companies tailor their production systems to perform the tasks, ones that are vital to corporate success and consistent with the corporate strategy. This seems to support the notion that the environment needs to be analyzed, and then strategy and structure need to follow with some level of clarity given to roles.

Any model of organizational performance must integrate overlapping and common explanatory variables from industrial organizational economics, organizational theory, and business policy, such as factors like business position, industry environment, strategy, and structure. When using the business unit as the unit of analysis and using the concepts of strategy and structure, it is possible to take into account different industry and competitive positions (roles), while examining the effects of strategy and structural contexts on performance, roles, etc. (White & Hamermesh, 1981).

The ability for organizational leaders to make sound and timely strategic decisions in environments characterized by uncertainty or ambiguity is of greater importance today than ever before. According to Nataraajan, Boulton, & Balakrishnan (2000), decisions are considered to be strategic when they are long-range decisions that respond to the dynamics and uncertainty of today’s competitive and rapidly changing environment. Asch & Bowman (1989) define strategic decisions as “the activities the organization should engage in, the acquisition and divestment of resources and the nature and pace of change”. Several researchers have identified organizational structure and participative management styles as having relationships with the nature and types of strategic decisions undertaken by top management (see Buchko, 1994, Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1996, and Nataraajan, et al., 2000).

Other researchers point to findings that suggest that overly rigid formal planning structures tend to thwart strategic thinking that is important to organizational effectiveness (Mintzberg, 1994, and Stone & Brush, 1996). Stone & Brush define planning in a fairly narrow context to include decisions and direct control over organizational resources. The ability to make decisions within uncertain contexts is also a desirable trait for future CEOs. Milliken (1987) defines environmental uncertainty as “an individuals perceived inability to predict [environmental variables] accurately, because of a lack of information or an inability to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant data” (p. 136).

Oswald, Mossholder, & Harris (1997), add that managers’ perceptions of the external environment and the organization’s competitive strengths are central to strategic considerations. Although conceptually more abstract, strategic vision, a related concept, can be thought of as the articulation of a desired future that guides and energizes organization members’ enactment of that desired future. In providing a broad framework for strategic direction, the vision should, then, help focus and inspire the members of the organization. Oswald, et al. (1997) further state, “involvement in strategy formulation has been related to managers’ increased understanding of organizational strategy and may facilitate greater consensus regarding it” (p. 345).

Generally, because it is experienced through self-discovery, managers are often more likely to trust the information they are exposed to in the process of their strategic involvement in decision-making and strategy development. Because environmental scanning is integral to strategy development, even passive involvement in strategy formulation may broaden managers’ perceptions of the external environment and expand the magnitude of the information made available to them (Bourgeois, 1985). This review, and these conclusions, lead to a discussion about the impacts of strategic involvement. As has been pointed out, information seeking and environment analysis, specifically external analyses are crucial to organizational success and the development of managers. Strategic involvement or participative decision making (PDM) may play an important role in motivating information seeking behaviors on the part of middle and lower level managers.

Oswald et al. (1997) conclude, “Therefore managers’ perceptions can be expected to correlate with organizational decisions and actions.” (p. 347) This phenomenon could result in a mosaic of diverging assessments unless the organization is able to provide some over-arching context that aids in the development of unified strategic action. Similarly, Ogilvie (1998) indicates that “confronted with rapidly changing, ambiguous environments, senior managers report that creative problem solving and the generation of new ideas are among the most important and valued traits in their workers. One would think that both of these activities go on in self-directed work teams.

The work of Amram & Kulatilaka (1999) supports these ideas as well; they determined that managing in the face of uncertainty is different than in other circumstances. They also found that to be an effective manager in ambiguous environments requires two important skills: the ability to identify valuable opportunities and the ability to adapt to marketplace changes. Many top executives find these principles difficult to live by due to underlying issues of corporate culture. While structure can be readily modified in a fairly timely fashion, making changes to the organizational culture often takes substantial time and energy commitments. Consequently, the culture of a group should be kept in mind when considering work teams.

Related to this point, van Olffen & Romme (1995) distinguish between hierarchical and team based organizational structures as conservative and dissipative self-organization. They state, “The former (conservative/hierarchical) leads to rather stable, specialistic systems, whereas the latter (self-directed teams) lead to continuously changing generalistic systems”. Contingency models of strategy even match the appropriate organizational structure to the environment or context that the organization is operating within (Sinclair, 1992). Researchers have suggested that elaborate hierarchies are often not as effective as self-directed team based organizations in responding to environmental turbulence (van Olffen & Romme, 1995). Therefore, the self-organizing organization is constantly in a state of flux, morphing itself to meet the requirements outlined by the external environment. The steady state of the hierarchy, which produces role clarity, is often sacrificed for the flexibility afforded by the team-oriented culture. One has to wonder, then, what happens to perceptions of roles under such conditions.

As was suggested above, hierarchy is defined as a vertical sequence of layers of accountability, based on different levels of authority and responsibility and a chain of command (Jacques, 1990; van Olffen & Romme, 1995). van Olffen & Romme (1995) note several disadvantages of hierarchical structures including excessive layering (management costs), limited accountability, low productivity of managerial work, and misunderstandings that occur due to poor communication. Accountability is the key component of a hierarchy. In looking at self-directed work teams, accountability may ultimately be developed by self-directed work teams, once they have reached the latter stages of development.

van Olffen & Romme (1995) maintain that a minimum amount of hierarchy is necessary for all human systems that involve individuals. They argue for a reconceptualization of hierarchy moving from a focus on command and control to a focus on the transformation and creation of knowledge. These ideas could help the organization achieve the autonomous self-organization that van Olffen and Romme espouse, by creating a structure that quickly passes information on to the place where it is needed vs. controlling information.

In stressing the importance of this “fit” between form and environment, Forte, Hoffman, Lamont, & Brockmann (2000), found that fit between environmental contingencies and organizational form resulted in superior performance. They further claim that many organizations do not adopt strategies that are significantly different from those employed by the organization historically. Therefore, they stay in the strategic “comfort zone”. Self-directed work teams may serve to push organizations beyond these points of comfort.

Using Ambiguity to Achieve Organizational Objectives

There are organizational leaders who embrace ambiguity for their own means as well to assist in affecting changes in the enterprise. This “use” of ambiguity is often in the form of ambiguous communications from executive management. Paul & Strbiak (1997) conclude that it is a widely recognized phenomenon that communications within organizations are often unclear and ambiguous. They further conclude that although clarity is usually considered desirable for communication, that ambiguity may be more effective in certain circumstances. Eisenberg (1984) uses the term strategic ambiguity to refer to “those instances where individuals use ambiguity purposefully to accomplish their goals”. Bowman & Ambrosini (1996) talk in terms of the difference between realized and intended strategies. They define the intended strategy as the one espoused by the top management team and communicated to lower levels of management. The realized strategy is what actually happens in practice as the intended strategy is massaged to meet the realizations of the real world or is modified in some way by the managers who implement the strategy.

Another point about strategic planning in environments that are uncertain is that often ambiguity is seen as a problem. As a result, solutions often seduce decision makers, because having “an answer” eliminates the major source of ambiguity. However, what decision makers fail to realize is that often, because ambiguity means imperfect information, it can be used as an advantage due to the fact that it may make imitation of strategies difficult for competitors.

Daniels & Bailey (1999) went one step further even, to evaluate the hypothesis that participation in strategic decision making (PSDM), that impacts the entire organization, moderates the effects of role ambiguity for individuals. They further evaluate the impact of implementing PSDM on the organization and on incumbent’s job satisfaction, and its practical implications. They concluded that individuals who are permitted to provide input to big picture decisions for the organization will engage in a form of role clarification and therefore have greater organizational commitment. As noted by Witt (1992), participative decision making efforts have been based on the notions that workers want to participate and that the outcomes of such participation are good for both the organization and the worker and, at least in some nations, for the society as well.

Strategic Planning in Uncertain Environments

Denis, et al. (1996) provide solid foundational work in the study of strategic leadership in situations of ambiguity, or what they term “organized anarchy”, where the traditional power of the hierarchy is limited, and where goals and the technologies may be unclear. They state “…change is complicated in autonomous professional organizations…” (p. 674). Amram & Kulatilaka (1999) believe that the environment in which many dot.com or internet firms operate within, are examples of significant environmental uncertainty. The competitive landscape is paced by technological innovation, and there is a need to rapidly adapt to changing conditions. The costs of searching for a profitable business model given the framework that they operate within are great.

Ogilvie (1998) states that managers are finding creative action-based techniques more helpful when facing ambiguity and rapid change than rational-logical techniques designed to reduce uncertainty by collecting and analyzing data. Unstable and ambiguous environments often facilitate the creative process, because they provide rich supplies of data that managers can employ imaginative processes to. These creative action-oriented approaches might involve taking different types of action based on intuition and experimentation, getting feedback from constituents, and developing situational awareness using imaginative techniques throughout the process.

Hierarchical Organizations

The Taylorist and Weberian bureaucratic structures were hierarchically designed organizations where the hand and brain were divided, where a specialized workforce needed managerial layers to control and coordinate it. This common way of organizing resulted in clearly defined tasks, jobs, and positions and clear formalized relationships between those who occupied these jobs. The current trend is towards organizations that have empowered employees, where organizational members at all levels take responsibility in a broader sense than the authority and responsibility traditionally allocated to each position in a line/staff hierarchy. In fact, the whole concept of a pyramid with the most powerful person on top hardly fits the reality of modern organizations. Rather, people seem to perform multiple roles, sometimes as specialists, sometimes as a mentor, and sometimes as a process owner. As a result, some believe that we have to change our organizational perspective from vertical (top-down or bottom-up) to horizontal (Ostroff & Smith, 1992).

In hierarchical organizations, an employee’s job is made up of a “set of task elements grouped together under one job title and designed to be performed by a single individual” (p. 173, Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1992). Hierarchical organizations create environments where compliance with orders is paramount, which may be counter to the mission of many present day organizations and commitments to customers (Ehin, 1995). Ehin further asserts that in hierarchical organizations, people focus on their rank within the hierarchy and on individualistic self-security. Ehin explains that centralized direction and systems of the hierarchy perpetuate the ideal of self-security, sometimes even at the peril of the organization. In contrast to models of organizational commitment, which are typically based on empowerment, Ehin describes the hierarchy as an oxymoron: “an organizational environment which demands compliance, yet asks its members to be committed” (p.32).

Loosely Coupled Systems

Loosely coupled organizations were defined by Weick in 1976, as organizational elements that are responsive, but retain their own identity within the organization. Orton & Weick (1990) describe organizations as both closed systems that attempt to create certainty, and yet these authors recognize that organizations are also open systems that plan for and anticipate uncertainty. Thompson (1967) first proposed the open and closed system architecture of organizations, which identified the technical core as the management of the organization, attempting to eliminate uncertainty. He further hypothesized that the institutional portion (sales, and executive management for example) of the organization was an open system that interacted with entities outside the system and thus “faced up to uncertainty” (p. 12). This line of reasoning seems to support a team based hierarchical structure (open system interacting with customers), coupled with a communication hierarchy (closed management hierarchy) supported by Nicholls, et al.(1999).

Orton and Weick (1990) note, “under uncertain conditions, loosely coupled project-based teams were created.” March (1987) even posited that ambiguity causes loose coupling to develop. Perhaps organizations that function within turbulent market conditions naturally gravitate toward loosely coupled systems such as self-directed work teams in order to effectively respond. Zelman & McLaughlin (1990) even support the notion of loosely coupled systems for organizations that serve complex markets, such as health care providers.

When evaluating an overriding contextual variable such as strategy, a multiplicity of factors are involved. They include external factors such as cultural aspects, legislation, the national economy, the structure of the industry sector, etc. as well as internal factors such as the size of the organization, its history and traditions, organizational structure, and the technology used (Valle, et al., 2000). Global changes at the societal, as well as the individual level, affect strategic management in at least two ways: they alter the relationships between firms and external stakeholders, and they alter the relationships between firms and internal stakeholders (Lowendahl & Revang, 1998). It would seem that the above-mentioned changes create increasing demands for flexibility, building organizational competence, responding to customer requirements, and rapid responses to new environmental challenges.

Lowendahl & Revang (1998) even note some common trends affecting strategic planning, including: globalization of firms and markets, increased turbulence in terms of the number of societal arenas undergoing transformational changes, rapid shifts in the field of knowledge production and distribution, an increasing number of persons holding University degrees, and major technological innovations especially in the computer and communications industries. Organizations today seem to be evolving into self-organizing forms, based on entrepreneurial actions at the lowest level, by the people closest to the myriad of environmental drivers to which they must respond (Engdahl, et al., 2000). Again, this seems to have been supported by Weick (1976), who suggested that organizations trying to serve complex markets might need to adopt loosely coupled characteristics.

Flexible Organizations

Lowendahl and Revang (1998) believe that powerful and knowledgeable employees today tend to challenge traditional hierarchical control structures, and that demanding customers, with individual needs, require flexible organizations with a broad range of offerings. Organizations, then, need the ability to tailor outputs to individual needs. Modern firms are increasingly characterized by disbursed critical competence (highly educated knowledge workers, organizational knowledge), loosely coupled internal units with tight couplings to external actors through long-term relationships, and increasing complexity in terms of both the types and numbers of interactions (Lowendahl & Revang, 1998). Aligning human resource management (HRM) sub-systems with a strategy that produces behaviors and outcomes consistent with that strategy seems to be a priority (Twomey & Harris, 2000). This seems to be supported by both the contingency and configurational perspectives, which hold the idea that given a corporate strategy, certain HRM practices will support that strategy through shaping behaviors and outcomes (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Wright & McMahan, 1992).

Nicholls, et al. (1999) even argues that; “large-scale organizational change, and particularly change that reduces structure and rules within the company, will introduce high levels of uncertainty” (p. 18). They further state that organizational changes, such as moves to self-directed work teams, would require that both managers and workers adopt new role expectations and behaviors. It is not just the structure that changes in these circumstances, but the philosophy of the organization changes too, which changes more slowly than the organizational chart. These types of adjustments may inevitably lead to role confusion and ambiguity along the way.

Much like the Mexican cultural attributes of low tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede, 1980), many organizations have a culture that is unaccepting of ambiguity and thus the members cling to the perceptions of control and order in the hierarchy. The move to self-directed work teams means that employers may have to seek out workers, as de Forest (1994) believes, who are independent and innovative vs. those who are agreeable, respectful, and obedient.

One quarter of the respondents (executives) in the Nicholls, et al.(1999) Mexican study suggested that firms need to establish clear goals and objectives for workers, and that communication should be two-way between management and its employees, including feedback and follow up for the teams. In fact, these authors report that organizations that were successful in implementing self-directed work teams had often maintained or created a hierarchal communication system within the organization. Some direction, within teams, may still be necessary – at least in some environments.

Self-Directed Work Teams

A self-directed work team (SDWT) is a group of highly trained employees who act interdependently (typically 6 – 18) and who are responsible for an entire work process that results in a finished good or service or the achievement of shared objectives (Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993; Orsburn et al., 1990). Self-directed work teams have also been defined as groups of interdependent individuals who regulate their own behavior on relatively whole tasks, who deliver a product or service to an internal or external customer (Deeter-Schmelz, 1997; Goodman, Devadas, & Hughson, 1988). One of the key components of this definition is the interdependence of the individuals and the tasks that they perform. Buchanan (1987) defines SDWTs as work groups allocated an overall task, and given discretion regarding how the work is to be done. These groups are self-managing in the sense that they work without direct supervision. To summarize, SDWTs are permanent, interdependent, relatively small, highly autonomous work groups that take complete responsibility for a product, project, or service (Becker-Reems, 1994; Salem, 1992).

Additionally, the SDWT assumes the typical supervisory and management functions such as, planning and scheduling of work, selection and training of human resources, process improvement, decision making, budgeting, and measuring and evaluating performance (Constantinides et al., 1994; Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997; Kirkman et al., 2001; Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite, & Zenger, 1990; & Wellins et al., 1991). Although Katzenback & Smith (1993) argue that 'team' connotes more than 'group', with team describing a type of group with relatively more commitment or cohesion. Also, the terms self-managed, self-directed, and autonomous teams imply that the team is self-regulating without a permanent full-time supervisor overseeing group activities. Given that definition, not many team based organizations measure up to the true definition of self-management. Consider the finding of Constantinides, et al. (1994) who discovered that “Ninety-nine percent of (Intensive Care Units at other hospitals) these units had some type of manager, thus were not truly self-directed as defined by our hospital” (p. 32H).

Orsburn et al. (1990, p.61) developed a planning framework for the adoption of self-directed work teams, which denotes five stages of team development and the “usual condition” of the team during the transition from the formal hierarchy. The five stages and their accompanying usual conditions are as follows: Stage 1: Start-Up/Optimism, Stage 2: State of confusion/Role upheaval, Stage 3: Leader-centered teams/Reliance on the team leader, Stage 4: Tightly formed teams/Fierce loyalty to the team, and Stage 5: Self-directed teams/Cooperative self-management. These stages are considered to be relatively informal, indistinct, and overlapping, because sharp demarcations are often not characteristic of the dynamic situations in which teams work and develop. Similar to the arguments made by Orsburn, et al. (1990), Manz & Sims (1993) indicate that implementation of SDWTs typically takes place over several years. Zelman & McLaughlin (1990) also warn organizations of the difficulties and time requirements of moving from hierarchical structures or matrix organizations to product line controlled systems managed by self-directed teams.

Kirkman & Shapiro (1997) state that self-directed work teams consist of 1) the process of self-management and 2) collaborative teamwork (interdependence and self-reliance). They define a work group as individuals who work interdependently in the accomplishment of tasks. Similarly, Thompson (1967) describes a “collegium” as a voluntary self-governing group of people who have equal influence, equal information, and who employ collective judgment for decision making. This type of group is consistent with a truly self-directed team (Stage 5 of development) as described above.

McGrath (1984) even discusses the work of teams as including four task categories: generating ideas and plans, choosing between alternatives, negotiating conflicts of interest, and executing work. Teams also create whole jobs, jobs that call for task and skill variety, and employees who have responsibility for outcomes and feedback to management and customers (Becker-Reems, 1994). Of course, this means that many employees require training to enable them to perform the various functions expected of team members. According to Becker-Reems, team members should be able to perform the following six functions: (a) planning, (b) performing the work, (c) measuring and improving performance, (d) solving problems and making decisions, (e) conducting meetings, and (f) training other team members. These new roles may lead to ambiguities for some team members.

A self-directed work team may perform all of these functions or only a few of them, depending on the degree to which it has been empowered to do so by the organization. The degree of empowerment, then, depends on the nature of the work, the preparation of the employees to do the work, and the organization’s culture and values. It is thought that these new roles may impact role ambiguity levels. The empowered team members assume new responsibilities; they lose their supervisor and typically have new work to do employing new procedures. According to Tubre & Collins (2000), “In today’s complex work environments, boundaries between occupations, departments, and organizations are often unidentifiable and blurred roles are especially likely to occur in jobs where the responsibility and performance of job tasks is distributed among teams and team members” (p. 157). Each of these factors would likely contribute to increases in role ambiguity in team based organizational environments.

Team Roles and Role Clarity

The role of a team has been defined as “… a tendency to behave, contribute, and interrelate with others at work in certain distinctive ways” (Belbin, 1993 p. 25). Therefore, the roles that individuals play have a significant impact on the ability of the team to perform. Deeter-Schmelz (1997) states, “Within the team, each member should have a clear understanding of his/her role and how the role interacts with other team roles. In other words, all members of the team must understand who is responsible for what task” (p.166). She further highlights the importance of clarity by stating, “When team roles are ambiguous, problems can arise as team members spend more time trying to understand their own purpose rather than the teams purpose” (p.166-167).

Self-Directed Work Teams – The Background

Why have self-directed work teams become so popular, so quickly? The answer is that they are not really a recent discovery. The sociotechnical systems (STS) approach that was developed in the 1950s, and which was refined in the 1970s, was the genesis for the team movement (Trist, 1981). The STS approach to organizational design attempts to make a best-fit match between an organization's systemic needs and workers’ social and psychological needs. The expectation is that a successful integration of these sets of needs and values will produce higher productivity for the organization and a higher quality of work life for the individuals who make up the enterprise.

Does work group autonomy lead to unacceptably high levels of role ambiguity? According to a key STS principle known as minimum critical specification, a work group or production unit will perform optimally “ if the unit requires no external supervision and control of its internal functioning, and no internal staff concerned with supervision, control, or work coordination” (Herbst, 1974). It is this team “management” that can be problematic, however, causing frustration within the team.

Teams often desire guidance from management regarding what the expectations are, the when or priorities of management, but they often do not want interference with the how, or processes, which they employ to reach the desired outcome (Moran, Musselwhite, Orsburn, & Zenger, 2000). Teams, then, often want to autonomously decide on a course of action and expect to receive management support and resources (primarily funding) to implement their innovations and ideas, without having to provide too much additional justification. Role ambiguity may even be a multidimensional construct with various aspects to it to consider in a team-based environment.

According to Buckenmeyer (1996), at the time of team formation, training and upper management support for the team concept are typically plentiful and available. Unfortunately, organizations often do not maintain adequate training and support-based resources, as noted by Buckenmeyer’s review at Mack Manufacturing Company. In his observations he noted, “after the first cycle of training, there has been little or no formal follow-up training. There has been no refresher training, nor does there seem to be significant management guidance about management expectations, problem identification, or problem solutions.” (p. 12).

Hirschhorn and Gilmore (1992) suggest that upon the introduction of the empowerment commonly found in SDWT based organizations; the structures that traditionally clarify boundaries no longer exist. This raises questions for newly minted team members, who within their new circumstances have questions about who is in charge, who wants what, and who will do what? These issues must be addressed in the forming of the group.

Benefits of SDWTs

Many organizations may be rushing to the self-directed group concept in search of the documented benefits such as better, and more timely decision making, more cost effective work processes, greater competitiveness with global firms, more creativity, increased morale or organizational commitment (Becker-Reems, 1994; Coppersmith & Grubbs, 1998; Goldstein, 1996; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Research further indicates that organizations that encourage employee self-management can increase productivity by

30 – 40% (Dumaine, 1991; Hoerr, 1989; Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite, & Zenger, 1990). Some organizations are reporting both increases in productivity and quality following the use of work groups (Brodie, 1989; Sheridan, 1990).

Self-directed teams also have been reported to improve quality, productivity, and service while reducing operating costs (Blanchett, 1994; Nicholls, et al. 1999; Wellins 1991). In addition, the shift to teams can provide workers with a sense of self-efficacy (Weick, 1976). Similarly, Cohen & Ledford (1994) found that teams produced higher levels of productivity and at lower cost levels. Research has also shown benefits at the individual level of analysis for team members - including job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).

Several organizations have reported lowering turnover, increased employee job satisfaction, improved product quality, and a reduction in the number of managers needed (Salem 1992). Other authors have outlined slightly different sets of benefits provided by teams, such as the reduction of costs through less overhead, (primarily middle management), speeding up of problem resolution (not having to go through the supervisor), and focusing attention on satisfying customer needs, (not their supervisor’s needs) (Bushe, Havlovic, & Coetzer, 1996). The last item noted, which indicates a focus on customer needs vs. supervisor’s needs, is salient for several reasons: First, this implies that role information (expectations) are being gleaned from customers from inside and outside the organizations boundaries. Second, this implies that the supervisor’s impact on role ambiguity may be greatly reduced. Third, the employees even reported reduced stress levels because they no longer had to be concerned with the direct supervision of their work; the group provided this function. Further, the firm benefits from the satisfaction of a significant stakeholder, namely its customers.

Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning (1986) even found a correlation between job satisfaction and pro-social behaviors engendered by team-based environments. According to Brown (1993) teams that are given simple and consistent assumptions and values to guide them, are creative in developing and implementing complex and sophisticated solutions to organizational problems and in generating opportunities.

Drawbacks of SDWTs

Garson and Stanwyck (1997) suggest that jobs that provide for greater responsibility, challenge, and autonomy may have negative effects on some workers. Vroom’s (1960) expectancy theory helps to explain this to some extent. His theory indicates that allowing workers to set goals, determine the methods for reaching those goals, and obtaining meaningful feedback on performance is more attractive to intrinsically motivated workers than to extrinsically motivated workers. Coopersmith and Grubbs (1998) add, “many employees do not necessarily want to be creative, empowered or entrepreneurial. For many experienced workers, this notion runs contrary to their expectation of their role in the organization” (p. 11).

Field observations of organizations adopting team based structures show that employees who are asked to work in new ways, such as teams, look to see who else in the organization is being asked to change. When the employees observe business as usual at the upper management levels, it is easier for them to dismiss team approaches as the management fad of the week. This organizational change “fatigue” is difficult for organizations to overcome once it has permeated the organization and the worker’s belief systems.

Unfortunately, few places in the literature describe failures of theories and practices; however, teams and team-based organizations do fail. Some of the reasons for these failures have been captured by Becker-Reems (1994): (a) sabotage from within the team, (b) insufficient training, (c) insufficient time to accomplish management functions, (d) failure to have regular team meetings, (e) failure to have challenging goals and expectations, (f) no feedback on team performance, (g) no team leader, and (h) management refusal to let the team be self-directed. These “warning signs” of trouble within and around the team should be helpful in evaluating a team’s progress toward teamwork. The list is largely comprised of items that a team, with management support and leadership from within, can avoid. It would seem that teams fail due to high initial levels of role ambiguity, perhaps due to a lack of management support and a lack of an adequate communications infrastructure.

Former Yugoslavia has been a test case for team-based organizational management since the 1950s (Witt, 1992). Yugoslavia employed a self-management and social ownership system based on the 1976 Law on Associated Work (Witt, 1992). The results for the economy and individual organizations within Yugoslavia have been mixed. For several years, Yugoslavia enjoyed one of the world's highest rates of investment and economic growth. With prosperity, the workers’ interests began to focus inward and they became more interested in personal income than either the socialist philosophy of equality or reinvestment of profits back into the firm (Strauss, 1982). According to Vanek (1977), it is not unusual for worker-managed organizations to under-invest in capital intense efforts. This in turn fostered the Yugoslav practice of turning profits into wages rather than into capital investment. This emphasis forced firms to borrow large sums of money. It also created a situation where the Yugoslav firms could no longer justify or support new loans. As a result, they had to look internally for capital. The workers' continued demands for higher wages, and the neglect of modernization, contributed to a national economic crisis (Witt, 1992).

One of the benefits of employing self-directed works teams is an organization of supposedly mutual cooperation vs. hierarchical competition. But is that what occurs in reality? Nicholls, et al.(1999) found that teams from individualistic cultures (like the U.S.) behaved cooperatively within the team, but competitively with other teams within the organization. The collectivist cultures were much more likely, however, to embrace interteam (across team) cooperation than the individualistic groups. Ehin (1995) also suggests that many firms embrace hierarchical structures because the autocracy and bureaucracy have typically saved the organization in the past. Nataraajan et al. (2000) warn that when strategic planning is conducted by only one individual or a small group of like-minded individuals, the heuristics employed to analyze available information are likely to be limited by commonality, a phenomenon described as “group think” a concept inherently contrary to self-directed work teams.

Sinclair (1992) has even posited that organizational structures based on teams have tyrannized workers. She argues that organizations are obsessed with teams and that they are “governed by oppressive stereotypes of what teams should be like and how they should behave” (p. 611). She further states that teams camouflage coercion and conflict by providing the appearance of consultation and cohesion. The benefits of teams have been the centerpiece of organizational reforms and the benefits of teams have been unmeasured and unquestioned (Sinclair, 1992).

Sinclair (1992) states that organizations in their rush to receive the purported benefits of teams create organizational upheaval with little consideration for the possible inequities, costs, and risks of such a significant structural modification.

Deeter-Schmelz (1997) indicates that one reason that teams fail is due to stifled information flows and poor intraorganizational communications, issues that undermine the ability of the organization to achieve its goals.

To tie this discussion back to role ambiguity, Matteson & Ivancevich (1987) list change, uncertainty, and demands placed on individuals, as antecedents to role stress. Sinclair (1992) even explains that group work often involves ambiguous performance standards, which are based on the judgments of peers. The decision to move to work groups may create additional sources of uncertainty and tension. Sinclair (1992) further states “that participation in groups is usually stressful and only occasionally, for some, satisfying” (p. 616). Rothschild & Whitt (1986) support this contention by indicating that participation in groups is often a source of stress rather than satisfaction.

Hierarchy vs. Teams

Hierarchical organizations and the organizational charts that outline and define their structures are typically straightforward in delineating roles and reporting mechanisms (Blanchett, 1994). Blanchett indicates, however, that the hierarchical model is ineffective in organizations because they cannot adapt to the social, economic, and technical changes that have developed in the past decade. In moving from a hierarchical structure to a team based structure, the role of the manager must change. For the team to be truly self-directed, the manager must move from being an active guide of the group, to an observer and facilitator of the team process, and finally to a consultant to the team (Blanchett).

van Olffen & Romme (1995) believe that hierarchies are efficient ways to structure human organizations that employee hundreds or thousands of workers. They argue that the efficiency of hierarchy is created when tasks are assigned to departments or individuals by managers who are held accountable for the results produced by these individuals or departments. This supports the argument that hierarchies produce role clarity by reducing ambiguity through accountability. van Olffen & Romme (1995) conclude that organizations without administrative hierarchies in place are rare, especially in large organizations. They contend that organizations should combine the best of both systems, employing hierarchical structures for communications and control, and work teams to accomplish organizational objectives. This approach focuses on monitoring performance and increasing performance, without adding additional layers of hierarchy. They make a case that any system or structure, which accomplishes the above, should be given serious consideration by business today.

According to Waller, et al. (2001) “Many key functions in flattened organizational hierarchies exist in teams of individuals, and team members, particularly those disbursed geographically, must seamlessly coordinate their activities over time in order to deliver their work when it is needed. What types of roles are then reserved for management? Blanchett (1994) found that “the most frequent managerial activities not shared with staff are budgeting (94 percent), professional compensation (88 percent), firing (82 percent), hiring (76 percent), and staff discipline (71 percent). Many of the teams reviewed by Blanchett have not reached stage 5 of the development process, which as discussed in the introduction to SDWTs section is when groups attain the ability to be self-directed and they employ cooperative self-management. Many likely have stalled in stage 3, where the teams are still leader-centered and rely heavily on the team leader for guidance and role information, due to management’s unwillingness or inability to move to truly self-directed teams. In fact, managers often claim that team members do not posses an understanding of the big picture (Blanchett, 1994). Role changes for managers can often, then, be threatening and undermine the success of team-based initiatives.

Teams in Modern Organizations

Kirkman & Shapiro (1997) attribute the increasing use of self-directed work teams to global competition and resulting company downsizings. During the past decade more than half of all U.S. businesses have adopted an organizational structure developed around self-directed or autonomous work teams (Stewart & Manz, 1995). According to Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford (1995), 68% of Fortune 1000 firms were utilizing self-directed work teams (based on a 1993 survey) and 91% employed structures that encouraged employee empowerment and participative decision-making. Many organizations are even employing work groups to maintain their competitive advantage in a global economy (Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993).

Many organizations, especially those facing turbulent global environments, take individuals and hierarchal situations and place them in teams and ask them to work collaboratively to achieve organizational objectives (Waller, Conte, Gibson, & Carpenter, 2001). Teams are becoming a basic building block for many contemporary business organizations, a growing area of research interest, and encompass a major organizational thrust for American businesses (Klein, 1995; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). The concept of “self-directed work teams” has existed for some time, but the widespread adoption of team-based structures and principles has been a relatively recent phenomenon in U.S. businesses (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). This shift from control based hierarchical structures to more participative structures has significant implications for organizations. For example, do people really have the skills to work effectively on SDWTs, is adequate training provided, are organizational cultures supportive enough of such work structures, are the organizational roles/procedures spelled out clearly enough to be effective? Morgan, et al. (1993) note that “the core stages of the [team development] model are preceded by a pre-forming stage that recognizes the forces from the environment (environmental demands and constraints) that call for, and contribute to, the establishment of the team; that is, forces external to the team (before it comes into existence) that cause the team to be formed” (p. 280).

Interestingly, in many cases it is the management of the organization that is opposed to the move to SDWTs and the organizational and structural changes that follow vs. the workers themselves. Managers often fear the potential loss of control and dislike the information sharing needed for successful self-directed teams. The traditional command and control hierarchical structures and piece-meal Frederick Taylor-like approaches to work and reward systems, support the need for the management hierarchy (Becker-Reems, 1994).

The SDWT environment sometimes even threatens the very foundation of hierarchical structures that are built upon the principles of scientific management. On the other hand, scientific management is, an excellent tool for the reduction of role ambiguity. Taylor’s focus ensured the reduction of process and expectation ambiguity as much as possible to ensure uniformity in work outcomes. The SDWT philosophy means, on the other hand, that the hierarchy is dismantled and that control and information must be pushed down to the lowest levels of the organization. According to Becker-Reems (1994), even lower level employees can perform tasks needed by team-based systems.

Organizational redesign proposals, especially those involving autonomous work teams, significantly undermine the principles of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management. Karasek (1979) argues that Tayloristic organizational structures probably lead to mental strain and stress that was overlooked at the time, but they may cancel the productivity benefits claimed by the rigid adherence to work procedures. It will be interesting to see, however, how self-managed teams fit into the new organizational picture.

According to Parasuranman & Alutto (1981), an insufficient numbers of studies exist investigating the organizational determinants of role stress. The present study may help to fill this gap by investigating the role stress that occurs during major organizational structure shifts. House & Rizzo (1972) believe that organizational characteristics may be key intervening variables in the generation of role stress. They note, for instance, the level of formalization as one such factor that can contribute to perceived role stress. The adoption of SDWT structures may have substantial impacts on levels of organizational formalization. Denison, Hart, & Kahn (1996) stress, even, that research on teams has lagged and left many, as yet, important questions regarding teams and their impacts on organizations and individuals unanswered.

Support for Teams with Strong Leadership and “Hierarchical Communications”

In evaluating educational institutions, Murphy & Hallinger (1984) state that managing loosely coupled systems is a challenge that requires strong leadership that unifies and clarifies goals. Orton & Weick (1990) further conclude that shared values are a key factor in determining the success or failure of loosely coupled systems. They state that shared values are “the sole remaining basis that holds together a loosely coupled system” (p. 212). Ouchi (1978) supports this notion by arguing that when hierarchies are removed, the loss of control within the organization is moderated by modularity and discretion and development of a clan orientation.

Shared values provide the what for roles, but do not provide the hows. Having the what provided, gives workers the flexibility to determine the processes (or hows of) the outcomes. This is a strength of loosely coupled systems because of increased possibilities for innovation and creativity. One of the significant challenges of self-directed, or loosely coupled systems, is strategic planning for the organization (the hows for goals) once the control and structure of the hierarchy is no longer available (Meyerson & Martin, 1987).

Deeter-Schmelz (1997) supports the notion of these communications within team-based organizational frameworks. She argues that organizations must create information flows between teams and/or functional units to allow for optimization to occur. She further recommends that this can occur within the framework of teams. Logistic processes need to be created within the team-based organization to ensure that these vital communications and the coordination of information flows occur in organizations (Deeter-Schmelz, 1997). According to Goren & Bornstein (2000), “Within group communication enhances individuals’ willingness to contribute their endowments toward their group’s effort.

Teams and Performance

One would think that the performance of highly interdependent workgroups is a function of each of the individual member’s performance and the ability of the group to work cooperatively (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Highly interdependent groups may be more vulnerable to poor performers due to the increased relevance of the poor performers impact on group and individual productivity. This may prove to be a benefit in self-directed teams, however, because the team may recognize these deficiencies and correct them more effectively and more quickly than would a supervisor in a less interdependent structure. This ability of the group to recognize deficiencies assumes that the members perform similar roles and therefore posses an understanding of all parts of the process. The group also has to have some mechanisms available to enforce deviations from expectations. LePine & Van Dyne (2001) caution, however, that team members may not possess adequate knowledge to perform peer assessments – a task that is not a simple one.

Waller, Conte, Gibson, & Carpenter (2001) contend that “profound impacts” are made on organizational effectiveness by a teams’ ability to coordinate their efforts and meet deadlines. They measured teams’ successes by their ability to meet deadlines, which they argue is a critical component of organizational success in the fast-paced global marketplace. Sinclair (1992) postulates that teams may not bring out the best performance from their members. For instance, requiring individuals to work in teams and to attend team meetings may lead to reduced organizational performance.

It is interesting to note that, Dunphy & Bryant (1996) have indicated that few studies have measured the link between performance and teams. Yet they note that performance is the “ultimate criterion” that managers should be employing before making structural changes to their organizations. They suggest a benefit/cost model for determining the utility of teams as an organizing philosophy. They suggest that performance outcomes be evaluated such as decreased costs, productivity, increased quality, customer responsiveness, and strategic flexibility. Dunphy & Bryant (1996) suggest that no studies presently exist that offer a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis. They conclude therefore, “So, while the benefits of team organization may be significant, these benefits may in reality be negated by unexamined costs” (p.680).

Moderators of Role Ambiguity in Team Settings

Autonomy and Teams

Perrewe & Ganster (1989) claim that the reduction of worker stress levels and increasing productivity of individuals are not necessarily incompatible goals. Instead of reducing job demands, they suggest reducing stress levels by increasing worker control over their work and conditions, which may be afforded by the adoption of SDWT. Further support for worker autonomy, specifically in the domain of goal setting is provided by Hollenbeck & Brief (1987), who found that individuals who had the opportunity to self set goals reported higher levels of motivation to reach those goals than those who had goals assigned to them.

Wrzeniewski & Dutton (2001) even conclude that having control over certain aspects of one’s work may be a basic human need. Karasek (1979) sums it up by noting “The major implication of this study (his – sic) is that redesigning work processes to allow increases in decision latitude for a broad range of workers could reduce mental strain, and do so without affecting the job demands that may plausibly be associated with organizational output levels” (p. 285). So, the voice, or ability to decide, may be a critical factor.

Cultural Diversity and Teams

The ever-changing demographics of the workplace have had a profound impact on organizations. These effects will probably continue into the future (Johnson, 1994). Research in the area of role stress/ambiguity, as relates to cultural diversity, may need to be updated to reflect this moving target. As role incumbents become more diverse the question becomes: What will be the impact on teaming processes and role ambiguity, will people know what they should be doing or how to go about it? One would have to assume that greater communication and/or understanding of problems must occur. Our view of SDWT-based organizations, and the possible resulting role ambiguity, may be compounded by shifts in these demographic variables. Current ambiguity remedies may need to be rethought/modified for this new mix of incumbents in team settings. This area has only just begun to be recognized.

According to Salem (1992), who relied on Hofstede’s (1980) uncertainty avoidance concept, ambiguity may be an essential characteristic to monitor as work teams are instituted. This observation seems to support the notion that SDWTs may actually increase the levels of role ambiguity vs. decreasing them through additional autonomy. Salem notes, however, that the Japanese are a paradox in this regard due to their strong uncertainty avoidance, but their ready acceptance and successes with the SDWT concepts. Perhaps Hofstede’s construct of collectivism/individualism is a possible counter-balancing force. Hofstede defined individualism as a people's self-concept of being independent actors or being dependent on a group. The Japanese concept of collectivism may better support the team concept and enable the Japanese to overcome their aversion to ambiguity. This idea may be supported by Bedian, et al. (1983) who found that one’s peers may have more impact on an individual’s job satisfaction than one’s supervisor or organization. Interaction among group members may help to alleviate uncertainty and role stress. The above, coupled with Hofstede’s findings for the United States (weak uncertainty avoidance, low power distance), may provide an environment ripe for SDWTs, but many specific relationships need to be clarified here.

Many leading Mexican companies have even adopted SDWT in response to increasing competition following Mexico’s involvement with GATT (1986 for Mexico), and later NAFTA (Nicholls, Lane, & Brechu, 1999). Nicholls, et al.(1999) believe that culture is an important variable to consider when organizational structures and systems developed elsewhere are imported to other cultures. These authors reinforce these ideas by stressing that the presence of cultural differences warrants and requires the actions of management to consider these fundamental differences.

With respect to Mexico specifically, Hofstede (1980) found that relative to its NAFTA counterparts, Mexico is considered to fall within the low range of tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity, which indicates a strong preference for clarity. This finding may be significant for managers dealing with role ambiguity within self-directed work teams in Mexico. Role ambiguity may have a much greater impact on workers from cultures with a low tolerance for ambiguity. The Mexican culture also scores in the high range for power distance - favoring a hierarchical approach to organizational design. Nicholls, et al.(1999) found the Mexican managers fit a more paternalistic role than a supervisory role, although the workers complied with behavioral norms and work rules, including rarely questioning the decisions made by managers.

Individualistic cultures, on the other hand, may create teams where conflict and individual initiative take hold, but this intra-team turbulence is often considered healthy and has been considered by some to produce better quality decisions and more creative outcomes (Nemeth, 1997). Contrast that with a collectivist culture in which intra-group harmony and face saving are cultural influences. There, the output of teams may be muted by the lack of a dissenting voice, which may produce an environment of groupthink. Nemeth & Staw (1989) may have also confirmed some of this. They found in studies of work teams that minority influence on groups was minimal due to the tendency for groups to strive for uniformity. They concluded that this could restrict adaptability, creativity, and survival.

Similarly, Nicholls, et al.(1999) found that teams from individualistic cultures preferred individual and team based reward systems, and that collectivist teams preferred strictly team based reward structures, which tends to support the cultural underpinnings of competition and/or cooperation. Kirkman & Shapiro (1997) also suggest that “….when introduced to the idea of SDWTs, an individual may accept taking on more responsibility regarding his or her tasks (self-management) but may resist sharing that responsibility with others (in teams).” (p. 740). They indicate that this scenario may be more likely for people from highly individualistic cultures than those from collectivist cultures.

Evaluation and Reward Systems

Perhaps the most difficult system to reorganize in an organization is the performance appraisal system (Coopersmith & Grubbs, 1998). Lawler (1994) suggests that in many cases team performance is usually rewarded, and pay is based, on individual knowledge, skill, and contributions. Individual approaches to rewards for team efforts can obviously be problematic, and should be an area of attention for practioners eager to reap the benefits of team based organizational structures. Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford (1995) provide suggested team based rewards such as team incentives, profit sharing, gain sharing, and stock ownership, which were highlighted as the most popular team performance-based rewards given to teams in their 1993 Fortune 1000 survey.

It should be noted, however, that Cooper, Dyck, and Frolich (1992) found that employees from individualistic cultures found “gainsharing” or a group system of employee pay where each member of the team receives similar pay, percentage increases in pay, or bonuses as unfair and encouraging of free-riding behaviors. Another barrier to team success is the actual nature of the reward and compensation structure. Typically even after team development rewards are introduced they are still based on individual performance or department level performance vs. true team performance (Blanchett, 1994).

Task Interdependence and Cohesion

As was mentioned, task interdependence has been found to impact team productivity (Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993). Interdependence is defined as the extent to which team members cooperate and work interactively to complete tasks (Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Interdependence has been hypothesized to have a U-shaped curvilinear form when plotted against team performance (Saavedra, et al., 1993). This was supported by the work of Wageman (1995) who found that work groups operating either primarily as individuals or cooperatively with substantial interdependence had higher performance levels than groups with moderate interdependence (Saavedra, et al., 1993; Stewart & Barrick, 2000).

This lack of reliance on group members for the completion of tasks may have substantial impacts on perceptions of role ambiguity. In the low interdependence case, individual work norms may be employed which may mediate group level role ambiguity. However, in the case of the highly interdependent work group, significant interactions between group members may result in group norms, cohesiveness, and group level goals and expectations which would provide, or demand, important role information, role clarity and reduce perceptions of role ambiguity (Hackman, 1992, Mitchell & Silver, 1990). Studies even suggest that group cohesiveness may be another key to the reduction of role ambiguity (Goldstein, 1996, Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Group cohesiveness may be something to watch as relates to role ambiguity in team settings.

More specifically, Zaccaro (1991) found that task cohesiveness was associated with lower role uncertainty and higher individual performance. Specifically, task cohesion is defined as an attraction to the group because of a liking for or commitment to the group task (Hackman, 1976). Interpersonal cohesion is a measure of the attraction to the group, as a result of relationships and friendships with other members of the group (Zaccaro, 1991). Zaccaro & McCoy (1988) found that groups with higher levels of both task and interpersonal cohesiveness displayed better performance than groups low on either type. One has to wonder what role “ambiguity” played in such situations.

Schriesheim (1980) even noted that group cohesiveness was associated with greater acceptance of group-prescribed performance roles. This seems to be consistent with the aims of self-directed work teams. David, Pearce, & Randolph (1989) define interdependence in a similar manner, as the extent to which the individuals comprising the team are dependent and support group members in task accomplishment. The group has reached cohesiveness, then, once the welfare of the group supersedes the welfare of the individual (Hackman, 1987). And, McCune (1990) found that smaller (5 – 8 member) teams were more likely than larger groups to demonstrate cohesiveness, which ultimately impacts team effectiveness.

A highly interdependent team consists of members who regularly share information and materials in the completion of group tasks (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997). Zaccaro (1991) notes, “task-cohesive groups often develop behavioral norms that facilitate role clarity and performance” (p. 390). Therefore, groups that are held together by a strong orientation to the task are likely to establish performance norms and strategies that clarify ambiguous role requirements (Hackman, 1976). In Zaccaro’s study, task cohesion was also shown to have a significant association with individual performance. Therefore, task cohesion seems to be positively related to role clarity.

Hackman (1990) uses task interdependence to make a clear distinction between work groups and teams. He indicates that teams have a higher degree of task interdependence than work groups although he concludes that work groups possess many of the same characteristics as teams. Task interdependence, cohesion, and the distinctions between work groups and teams may add to our understanding of role ambiguity in self-managed team environments.

Feedback

Many reviewers have noted the importance of feedback for the effective performance of SDWTs (Spreitzer, Cohen, & Ledford, 1999; Pearson 1991). Specifically, these authors refer to task feedback, which enables group members to monitor their activities and make improvements in response to performance situations. In fact, Pearson (1991) found that there is evidence that feedback reduces levels of role ambiguity. In his study, the control group (the groups that did not receive productivity ranking feedback) reported a substantial increase in role ambiguity, as well as significant decreases in internal work motivation and job satisfaction. The groups that received the feedback on productivity, however, showed improved productivity and reductions in reported role ambiguity levels.

Group feedback provides information on how well members have implemented their task strategy and suggests whether members should modify the way they are doing their work in order to improve. Conversely, individual feedback directs members’ attention to their own work efforts, independent of the actions of others in their group (Saavedra, et al., 1993). Feedback seems to be a critical element in role ambiguity situations in teams.

Integration of Role Ambiguity and Teams

“Most research on role stress has been based on the perceptions of the focal role incumbent alone, perceptions usually obtained via a self-report questionnaire” (Van Sell, et al., 1981). (p.45). This is inconsistent with the realities of the modern workplace. Thus, we move to the argument in support of evaluating role ambiguity as an individual level construct, as well as a group level construct.

The significant shift to teams in applied settings has created a need to develop tools for the measurement of team performance and to maximize team performance (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Stevens & Campion, 1994). In Jannotta & Maldonado’s (1992) retrospective review of nurses who were organized in SDWTs, it was noted that the changes to the basic roles of nurses (including the addition of traditional management responsibilities) fundamentally changed role expectations and lead to uncertain and shifting roles, which contribute to role ambiguity. They further state, “They (self-directed nurses) need broad direction regarding overall objectives, goals, and outcomes, just as all managers do, rather than daily guidance”. This is essentially providing the teams with the “what and when” and giving them the power to decide the “how”. This group seems to be in stage 3 of the development process, which is described as leader-centered with a heavy reliance on the team leader for direction and role information, as described by Orsburn, et al. (1990) because their team leaders are still in place to provide the oversight, not having transitioned to full self-direction.

Impact of Organizational Restructuring

Organizational restructuring is an intentional, conscious management change program designed to create an internal administrative structure though significant reconfiguration of existing systems (Bowman & Singh, 1993; McKinley & Scherer, 2000). McKinley & Scherer (2000) found significant consequences of organizational restructuring, such as the adoption of self-directed work teams leading to long-term environmental turbulence within organizations. They further concluded that the turbulence was a result of an on-going perceived need to continue restructuring in the future, leading to the development of a disorderly organizational environment in a constant state of flux (Bowman & Singh, 1993; McKinley & Scherer, 2000).

In many cases the perception of a turbulent external environment due to factors such as globalization, international financial crises, and rapid technological change lead the leadership of an organization to find an internal organizational structure to “fit” or “match” or “coalign” with the external environment (McKinley & Scherer, 2000; Naman & Slevin, 1993). These attempts are often the nexus of organizational restructuring, ones that lead to opportunities for role ambiguity. The move to self-directed work teams shifts the focus from supervisor attribution to peer attribution and sometimes results in role confusions (LePine & Van Dyne 2001).

McKinley & Scherer (2000) question whether or not middle managers and employees have the ability to make sense of the organizational restructuring resulting from external environmental turbulence, as well as organizational leaders can. The leadership likely feels a greater sense of role clarity or cognitive order from the processes of restructuring, because they are making many of these decisions, but the lower levels of the organization are potentially exposed to role ambiguity and cognitive disorder as a result of the structural shifts. The order and clarity for executive management is often created at the expense of ambiguity and disorder for the balance of the organization. Often the workers must reconsider work processes and behaviors as a result of the restructuring (McKinley & Scherer, 2000). Similar to the recommendation of Nicholls, et al. (1999), McKinley & Scherer (2000) conclude that top management must focus attention on formal channels of communication with their subordinates during these processes of restructuring in order to help with the ambiguity created.

Role Ambiguity/Restructuring and Teams

McKinley & Scherer (2000) found some evidence of role ambiguity that was an unintended consequence and result from organizational restructurings. They state “We also maintain that organizational restructuring leads to a bifurcation or gap between the cognitions of top managers and those of their subordinates” (p. 736). Similarly, Kirkman & Shapiro (1997) claim that self-management increases uncertainty for employees because the boss who provided certainty is removed; conversely they claim that self-management can reduce employee uncertainty by providing the employee with control over decisions and thus work outcomes. According to Bray & Brawley (2002), “Roles are important elements in the structure and performance of small groups” (p. 234). This supports the notion that structural changes may impact performance for SDWTs.

Morgan et al. (1993) have maintained that a role for the team and the individuals that comprise the team must be established before tasks are determined and performance can be rendered. They believe that the team is responsible for the establishment of the requirements and rules for the team, which are then employed by the teams in solving problems and accomplishing tasks. Further, Morgan and his colleagues argue that the roles do in fact change over time and that team members must adapt to these changes over time. These are often different from the roles that team members assumed at the team start-up stage.

According to Sinclair (1992) “In many workgroups there is considerable scope for the group to define its own task, and there is evidence that definitions are never permanently resolved - while it suits one individual to view the task as completed, another will see it differently” (p. 613). This problem seems consistent with the definitions of role ambiguity within workgroups, as previously discussed. It would seem, then, that the organizational structure changes to workgroups can create role ambiguity – ambiguity that may not have previously existed. Perhaps this is why Deeter-Schmelz (1997) argues that the organization must provide crucial supports for the development of successful teams, such as training, rewards and recognition, employment policies and practices, and the development of the “team culture”.

Role Ambiguity at Various Levels of Analysis

Composition theories support the evaluation of constructs at multiple levels of analysis (e.g., individual, group, and organization), to enable researchers to redefine constructs for each level of review (Roberts, Hulin, & Rousseau, 1978). Roberts, et al. (1978) indicate that research often involves the aggregation of responses from a lower level of analysis to represent something more macro in nature. As an example they offer, “Individual assessments of job satisfaction are often aggregated to represent group morale.” (p. 83). This does not readily imply the simple application of an individual construct to the group setting. The construct must be redefined to account for differences that exist at the group level of analysis. Roberts, et al. (1978) further state, “It is possible, however, that group morale can be appropriately and unambiguously assessed only through observations uniquely tied to groups. Consequently, a sociometric technique to assess group cohesion (clearly a property of a group, not an individual) may provide a better measure of morale than aggregated satisfaction scores.” (p. 83).

It is with this foundation in mind that we continue to review the justification for evaluating role ambiguity as a group level construct – in team settings. This situational approach is supported by the work of Bedian, Mossholder, & Armenakis (1983). They hypothesize that three levels of analysis be studied to understand the impacts of role stress. The three levels suggested are the individual, group, and organizational levels.

Kahn, et al.(1964) even distinguished three classes of predictor variables for stress - organizational, personal, and interpersonal, using the interpersonal to justify the group level analysis. Similarly, Orton & Weick (1990) studied subunits within organizations, which they describe as “structural elements that are above the individual level and below the organizational level…” (p. 208). All support the idea that individual descriptions may not apply entirely to group/team phenomenon.

While their focus was primarily on autonomy, Kirkman and Rosen (1999) also emphasized the importance of taking both individual and group effects into account, stating, “What is needed most now in the team effectiveness literature is research that examines empowerment at the individual and team levels simultaneously” (p. 70). This argument may be extended to the evaluation of role ambiguity in individual and team based environments. Due to the interdependences found in group based activities and the potential impact of role ambiguity on individual and team performance, there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of teams, and the individuals that comprise them, in task situations.

According to Goldstein (1996), shared perceptions of role ambiguity are expected among group members because the organizational environment is treating them as members of a group. The interaction among group members, therefore, allows for the sharing of affective and behavioral responses that may further lead to similar perceptions of role ambiguity. Goldstein identified five studies, which provide support for the group level evaluation of role ambiguity (i.e., Anderson, 1975; Burke & Burucki, 1993; Jackson, 1983; Kopelman, Brief, & Guzzo, 1990; Zaccaro, 1991). Specifically, the studies investigating goal-path clarity (Anderson, 1975) and role uncertainty (Zaccaro, 1991) offer support for the notion of group role ambiguity collected in this manner. Additional support for the validity of group role ambiguity is provided by the results from Jackson’s (1983) study. This author examined the influence of participative decision making as a strategy for reducing job-related strain and found a causal link between participation in decision making and role ambiguity. Jackson (1983) notes that information about one’s role, which may clarify the role and reduce role ambiguity, can be obtained through the process of participating in decision making. Similarly, Gibson (1999) suggests that her research into group efficacy demonstrates the appropriateness of using a group response format for conceptualizing and measuring group-level constructs. She adds, “additional research concerning the applicability of the group response format for the measurement of other constructs – such as group cohesion, group learning, and group memory – seems warranted” (p. 150).

Newton & Keenan (1987) also support the study of role stressors including role ambiguity, which operate at the individual, group, and organizational level. They state “that this type of research remains of particular interest, since there is still a relative lack of attempt in organizational behavior to link variables operating at the organizational and interpersonal level” (p. 365).

Summary

The positive effects of SDWTs are impressive, but organizations may be overlooking the disadvantages of team and autonomous group structures in their rush to obtain the perceived benefits. The risks associated with major organizational shifts and the possibility of increased levels of role ambiguity, coupled with the predominance of organizations moving to the self-directed work team concept, support the additional study of role ambiguity within the structure afforded by SDWTs.

As with individuals, groups can also have roles. According to Bion (1961), all groups assemble to accomplish roles, or primary tasks, and such primary tasks are the purpose for the group’s existence. According to Barry & Stewart (1997), “the proliferation of self-directed teams in the workplace raises new questions about the psychology of group composition, process, and performance.” (p. 62). In fact, Kahn et al. (1964) distinguished three types of role stress predictors: (a) personal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) organizational. This notion supports the contention that role ambiguity is not an issue that solely rests with the individual, but it may be a product of the greater environment of the organization or group that the individual contributes to. This emphasis, does not, however, call for the downplay of certain individual moderator variables (personality, gender, etc.). Clearly, what happens in a group or organization goes beyond how an individual behaves. The study of role ambiguity within work teams is an area that has largely escaped review in the literature (see Goldstein, 1996 for an exception).

Most studies have examined role ambiguity and work teams separately. It is further possible that role ambiguity can simultaneously exist at both the group and individual level within the work group, which has thus far been ignored by studies investigating self-directed work teams and role ambiguity. As has been indicated, self-directed teams have authority over “doing the right things” (Townsend & Gebhardt, 1990). One can begin to see that the study of self-directed teams is no simple task, and that they may be linked to studies of role ambiguity in particular. The definitions provided above would indicate that teams may be provided with an overriding goal or expectation by the supervisor or organization and an understanding of priorities and behaviors needed to carry out their tasks, but work processes and procedures, and sometimes even objectives, are left up to the group to determine. Consequently, the

SDWT concept may involve nothing less than the complete restructuring of the jobs that people perform (Simmons, 1989).

According to a qualitative study undertaken by Buckenmeyer (1996), management’s expectations of work teams sometimes causes operational problems if the expectations are not clearly identified. Specifically, Buckenmeyer found that “a number of group leaders and members have expressed frustration because they are not completely sure of what upper management expects from them”. (p. 14). The teams in question in Buckenmeyer’s work were semi-autonomous and had a leader appointed by management, yet they still continued to report role ambiguity. These findings highlight the importance of role ambiguity even further as relates to various “shades” of self-managed groups. The central question that will be addressed in this study is: Do self-directed team environments create additional ambiguity or do these structures alleviate ambiguity? Job induced stress remains an important variable to researchers, because of our incomplete knowledge of what triggers stress in job and organizational settings (Jamal, 1985). There is also a “paucity of empirical studies relating stress with performance” (p. 420). In fact, organizational factors often contribute to the creation of job stress, however the exact nature of these relationships is unknown (Cooper & Payne, 1978). This study will focus on the construct of role ambiguity in self-managed work team environments and its potential impact on worker performance and stress. The present review suggests that the variables presented in Figure 1 seem to be pertinent as we investigate relationships between organizational structure, role ambiguity, and performance.

Table 4

Role Ambiguity and Performance

		Productivity	Role Ambiguity
Productivity
Pearson Correlation	1	-.761**

Sig. (1-tailed)	.	.000

N	22	22
Role Ambiguity
Pearson Correlation	-.761**	1
(Reversed)
Sig. (1-tailed)	.000	.

N	22	22

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

To test hypothesis two firm one, shift one (hierarchical) role ambiguity data was compared to firm two, shift two (teams stage 2) and to firm one, shift two (teams stage 3) data. The responses were summed and averaged across each role ambiguity question (questions 1 – 12 on surveys in Appendix B). In addition, an overall role ambiguity value was obtained for each group by summing and averaging all responses across all questions pertaining to role ambiguity. T-tests were used to examine hypothesis two at the individual question level, as well as, the overall level of role ambiguity as indicated above. Again, the role ambiguity scores were reversed.

As indicated in Table 5, when comparing the hierarchical group to the team at stage 2, there is a statistically significant difference between the groups found on 10 of the 12 role ambiguity questions. Only question four: I am corrected or rewarded when I don’t really expect it and question ten: I am told how well I am doing on my job, did not show significance. These questions seem to address the feedback portion of the role communication cycle (Fenlason & Beehr, 1994). In evaluating the overall levels of reported role ambiguity and employing the reversed scale, the hierarchical group has a mean score of 1.42/5.00 and the team stage 2 group has a mean score of 2.44/5.00. This overall role ambiguity t-score of -7.09 is statistically significant at the a .05 level. For this portion of the analysis the team is reporting higher levels of ambiguity than the hierarchical group, this is consistent with the state of confusion described by Orsburn, et al. (1990). The threshold t-value for a one-tailed test at a .01 and 71 degrees of freedom is -2.380; therefore the teams based group is experiencing a statistically significant higher level of role ambiguity than the hierarchical group.

Table 5

Role Ambiguity t-tests (hierarchical vs. team stage 2)

	t-test for Equality of Means
	t	df	Sig. (1-tailed)	Mean Difference
Q1 - I feel certain	-4.405	73	.000	-1.01
Q2 - I have clear	-6.891	73	.000	-1.38
Q3 - I feel a lack	-2.849	73	.006	-.60
Q4 - I am corrected	-.928	72	.357	-.21
Q5 - I know that	-4.439	72	.000	-.85
Q6 - I know what	-7.898	72	.000	-1.50
Q7 - I feel certain	-3.708	72	.000	-.96
Q8 - I know exactly	-9.102	73	.000	-1.78
Q9 - I am certain	-12.852	73	.000	-2.16
Q10 - I am told	-1.398	73	.166	-.32
Q11 - I receive a clear	-5.212	73	.000	-1.11
Q12 - I have to work	-3.775	73	.000	-.71
Overall Role Ambiguity	-7.092	71	.000	-1.02

As indicated in Table 6, when comparing the hierarchical group to the team at stage 3, there is a statistically significant difference between the groups found on 7 of the 12 role ambiguity questions. In evaluating the overall levels of reported role ambiguity, the hierarchical group has a mean score of 1.42/5.00 and the team stage 3 group has a mean score of 0.93/5.00. The overall role ambiguity t-score of 3.67 is statistically significant at the a .05 level. For this portion of the analysis the team group is reporting lower levels of ambiguity than the hierarchical group, and this finding is consistent with a team that has more completely developed.

Alternative hypothesis two was accepted. The teams based group in the initial stages of development is experiencing higher levels of role ambiguity than the hierarchical group. Null hypothesis two is rejected. There is a statistically significant difference between self-reported role ambiguity levels for workers organized in teams vs. hierarchies.

Performance Levels of Hierarchies vs. Teams

Hypothesis three states that no differences in performance levels will be present between workers organized hierarchically vs. those in various stages of team development. Hypothesis three as stated in the alternative and null forms:

H3_a: Work group performance is lower for groups in the initial stages of team development than groups that are organized hierarchically.

H3_o: There is no difference in performance levels between hierarchically organized and team based workers (t-tests of performance data provided by firm one, comparing the hierarchical organization to the team at stage 3).

Table 6

Role Ambiguity t-tests (hierarchical vs. team stage 3)

	t-test for Equality of Means
	T
df	Sig. (1-tailed)	Mean Difference
Q1 – I feel certain
2.539	67	.013	.65
Q2 - I have clear
3.900	67	.000	.76
Q3 - I feel a lack
.932	65	.355	.25
Q4 - I am corrected
2.917	67	.005	.81
Q5 - I know that
1.802	65	.076	.36
Q6 - I know what
2.312	66	.024	.38
Q7 - I feel certain
2.773	64	.007	.82
Q8 - I know exactly
.181	67	.857	.04
Q9 - I am certain
.157	67	.876	.03
Q10 - I am told
2.461	67	.016	.76
Q11 - I receive a clear
3.166	66	.002	.70
Q12 - I have to work
1.042	67	.301	.26
Overall Role Ambiguity
3.672	65	.000	.49

To test hypothesis three firm one, shift one (hierarchical) performance data in units produced was compared to firm one, shift two (hierarchical and teams stage 1) to establish that no preexisting differences in performance were present for the shifts and shift one was then compared to the second shift during stage 2 to determine whether or not differences in performance existed once the teams were implemented.

T-tests were used to examine hypothesis three two points in time. Test one represents the time period January 2000 – October 2000 (baseline) and the second t-test (following the implementation of teams based structure) represents the April 2001 – April 2002 time period.

As indicated in Table 7, when comparing the hierarchical group to the team when it was still organized hierarchically, there is no statistically significant difference between the groups. The t-score of -.005 and significance of .996 affirms this finding. This would indicate that the firm one shifts were similar in their productivity before the organizational structure change was announced and implemented.

As indicated in Table 8, when comparing the hierarchical group to the team in stages 1 and 2 of development, there is a statistically significant difference in productivity between the groups. The t-score of 2.16 and significance of .043 affirm this finding. This would indicate that the second shift was less productive than the first shift during these initial stages of team development. The threshold t-value for a one-tailed test at a .05 and 20 degrees of freedom is 1.725, therefore the team based group is less productive than the hierarchical group in the initial stages of team development.

Table 7

Performance t-tests (baseline data/before team based structures were adopted)

	SHIFT	N	Mean	Std Deviation	Std. Error Mean
Productivity
1	7	13893.71	3935.238	1487.380

2	7	13901.57	2026.156	765.815

Independent Samples Test

	t-test for Equality of Means
	t
df	Sig. (1-tailed)	Mean Difference
Productivity
-.005	12	.996	-7.86

Table 8

Performance t-tests (hierarchical vs. team at stages 1 and 2)

	SHIFT	N	Mean	Std Deviation	Std. Error Mean
Productivity
1	11	28670.64	7756.596	2338.702

2	11	22116.18	6412.857	1933.549

Independent Samples Test

	t-test for Equality of Means

t	df	Sig. (1-tailed)	Mean Difference
Productivity
2.160	20	.043	6554.45

Alternative hypothesis three is accepted. Null hypothesis three is rejected. There is a statistically significant difference between productivity levels for workers organized in teams vs. hierarchies.

Role Ambiguity Levels for Teams at Differing Stages of Development

Hypothesis four states that no differences in self-reported role ambiguity levels will be present between workers in various stages of team development. Hypothesis four as stated in the alternative and null forms:

H4_a: As teams progress through the stages of development, role ambiguity levels decrease as the team develops.

H4_o: There is no difference in role ambiguity levels for teams at differing stages of development (t-tests of survey data provided by both firms, team stage 2 vs. team stage 3).

To test hypothesis four firm one, shift two (team stage 3) role ambiguity data was compared to firm two, shift two (team stage 2). The responses were summed and averaged across each role ambiguity question and reversed as noted previously (questions 1 – 12 on surveys in Appendix B). In addition, an overall role ambiguity value was obtained for each group by summing and averaging all responses across all questions pertaining to role ambiguity. T-tests were used to examine hypothesis four at the individual question level, as well as, the overall level of role ambiguity as indicated above.

As indicated in Table 9, when comparing the team at stage 3 to the team at stage 2, there is a statistically significant difference between the groups found on all 12 of the role ambiguity questions. In evaluating the overall levels of reported role ambiguity, the

Table 9

Role Ambiguity t-test (team at stage 3 vs. team at stage 2)

	t-test for Equality of Means
	t	df	Sig. (1-tailed)	Mean Difference
Q1 - I feel certain	-8.054	76	.000	-1.66
Q2 - I have clear	-13.179	76	.000	-2.14
Q3 - I feel a lack	-3.674	74	.000	-.85
Q4 - I am corrected	-4.214	75	.000	-1.01
Q5 - I know that	-6.082	75	.000	-1.21
Q6 - I know what	-12.767	76	.000	-1.88
Q7 - I feel certain	-9.201	74	.000	-1.77
Q8 - I know exactly	-10.657	76	.000	-1.82
Q9 - I am certain	-12.800	76	.000	-2.19
Q10 - I am told	-4.694	76	.000	-1.09
Q11 - I receive a clear	-10.810	75	.000	-1.81
Q12 - I have to work	-5.201	76	.000	-.97
Overall Role Ambiguity	-14.744	74	.000	-1.51

stage 3 team has a mean score of 0.93/5.00 and the stage 2 team has a mean score of 2.44/5.00. The overall role ambiguity t-score of -14.74 is statistically significant at the a .05 level. The threshold t-value for a one-tailed test at a .01 and 74 degrees of freedom is –2.378, therefore the stage 2 team is reporting significantly higher levels of ambiguity than the stage 3 group.

Alternative hypothesis four is accepted. The role ambiguity levels decreased for the stage 3 group when compared to the stage 2 group. Therefore, as the team develops the levels of role ambiguity decline. Null hypothesis four is rejected. There is a statistically significant difference between role ambiguity levels for workers organized in teams that are in different stages of development. Role ambiguity levels are greater at the earlier stages of development.

Performance Levels of Teams at Differing Stages of Development

Hypothesis five states that no differences in performance levels will be present between teams at the various stages of team development. Hypothesis five as stated in the alternate and null forms:

H5_a: As teams progress through the stages of development, work group performance increases as the team develops.

H5_o: There is no difference in performance levels for teams at differing stages of development (t-tests of performance data for firm one, comparing team stage 3 vs. itself at earlier stages 1 and 2).

To test hypothesis five firm one, shift two, performance data in units produced was compared over time. The productivity of this team during stage one of development (October 2000 – March 2001) was compared to the productivity of this team during stage two of team development (April 2001 – April 2002).

A t-test was used to examine hypothesis five during the two stages. As indicated in Table 10, when comparing the stage one team to the stage 2 team, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. The t-score of -.814 and significance of .428 affirm this finding. This would indicate that the team had similar levels of productivity during the first two stages of team development. The threshold t-value for a one-tailed test at a .05 and 15 degrees of freedom is –1.753, therefore the stage 2 team is not producing significantly higher levels of output than the same group at stage 1 of development.

Alternative hypothesis five is rejected. Work group performance did not show significant differences during the early stages of team development. Null hypothesis five is accepted. There is no statistically significant difference between productivity for workers organized in teams that are in different stages of development.

Role Ambiguity and Group Cohesion

Hypothesis six states that no relationship will exist between role ambiguity and group cohesion. Hypothesis six as stated in the alternative and null forms:

H6_a: As group cohesion levels increase, role ambiguity decreases.

H6_o: There is no relationship between group cohesion and role ambiguity (correlational analyses performed on survey data from both firms).

To test hypothesis six a one-tailed Pearson product movement correlation (Pearson r) and a scatter diagram were applied to the data provided by all respondents and to each of the three subgroups (firm one, shift one – hierarchical, firm one, shift two
Table 10

Performance t-test (team stage 1 vs. team stage 2)

	STAGE	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean
Productivity
1	6	13946.17	1042.677	425.671

2	11	15481.33	4489.000	1353.484

Independent Samples Test

	t-test for Equality of Means
	t
df	Sig. (1-tailed)	Mean Difference
Productivity
-.814	15	.428	-1535.16

– team stage 3, and firm two, shift two – team stage 2) independently. The group cohesion data was summed and averaged across the 9 questions (questions 21 – 29) on the survey in Appendix B), the role ambiguity data was also summed and averaged by respondent and in an overall fashion as previously stated. In addition, the role ambiguity mean scores were reversed for this portion of the analysis, so that low role ambiguity scores would be considered favorable and high role ambiguity mean scores would be unfavorable in order to understand the possible relationship between group cohesion and role ambiguity and to produce the scatter diagrams properly.

Several scatter diagrams provide graphic representations of the data in figures 4 – 7. Figure 4 shows the overall analysis for all respondents. The Pearson r for the overall data is -.381, and is significant at the a .01 level, which indicates a significant, negative association between group cohesion and role ambiguity. Table 11 shows the output of the correlational analysis for the overall data. Figure 5 shows the scatter diagram for the firm one, shift one (hierarchical) group. Table 12 shows the Pearson r for this subset of data is -.167, and is not significant at the a .05 level. Figure 6 shows the scatter diagram for the firm one, shift two (team stage 3) group. The Pearson r for this subset of data is -.060, as shown in Table 13 and is not significant at the a .05 level. Figure 7 shows the scatter diagram for the firm two, shift two (team stage 2) group. As indicated in Table 14, the Pearson r for this subset of data is -.389, and is significant at the a .05 level.

Alternative hypothesis six is accepted. Some groups showed decreases in role ambiguity levels as group cohesion levels increased. Null hypothesis six is rejected. A weak but statistically significant relationship does exist between role ambiguity and group cohesion at the a .05 level for some groups.

Figure 4. Group cohesion and role ambiguity scatter plot for all data (n = 111, r = -.381, significant at a .01 level).

Table 11

Role Ambiguity and Group Cohesion (all data)

		Group Cohesion	Role Ambiguity
Group Cohesion
Pearson Correlation	1	-.381**
(Summed)
Sig. (1-tailed)	.	.000

N	111	111
Role Ambiguity
Pearson Correlation	-.381**	1
(Reversed)
Sig. (1-tailed)	.000	.

N	111	111

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Figure 5. Group cohesion and role ambiguity scatter plot for firm one, shift one, organized hierarchically (n = 33, r = -.167, not significant at a .05 level).

Table 12

Role Ambiguity and Group Cohesion (firm 1, shift 1 – hierarchical)

		Role Ambiguity	Group Cohesion
Role Ambiguity
Pearson Correlation	1	-.167
(Reversed)
Sig. (1-tailed)	.	.176

N	33	33
Group Cohesion
Pearson Correlation	-.167	1
(Summed)
Sig. (1-tailed)	.176	.

N	33	33

Figure 6. Group cohesion and role ambiguity scatter plot for firm one, shift two, team in stage 3 of development (n = 36, r = -.060, not significant at a .05 level).

Table 13

Role Ambiguity and Group Cohesion (firm1, shift 2 – team stage 3)

		Role Ambiguity	Group Cohesion
Role Ambiguity
Pearson Correlation	1	-.060
(Reversed)
Sig. (1-tailed)	.	.364

N	36	36
Group Cohesion
Pearson Correlation	-.060	1
(Summed)
Sig. (1-tailed)	.364	.

N	36	36

Figure 7. Group cohesion and role ambiguity scatter plot for firm two, shift two, team in stage 2 of development (n = 42, r = -.389, significant at a .05 level).

Table 14

Role Ambiguity and Group Cohesion (firm 2, shift 2 – team stage 2)

		Role Ambiguity	Group Cohesion
Role Ambiguity
Pearson Correlation	1	-.389*
(Reversed)
Sig. (1-tailed)	.	.005

N	42	42
Group Cohesion
Pearson Correlation	-.389*	1
(Summed)
Sig. (1-tailed)	.005	.

N	42	42

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

Role Ambiguity and Intragroup Communication

Hypothesis seven states that no relationship will exist between role ambiguity and intragroup communication. Hypothesis seven as stated in the alternative and null forms:

H7_a: As intragroup communication levels increase, role ambiguity decreases.

H7_o: There is no relationship between intragroup communication and role ambiguity (correlational analyses performed on survey data from both firms).

To test hypothesis seven a one-tailed Pearson product movement correlation (Pearson r) and a scatter diagram were applied to the data provided by all respondents and to each of the three subgroups (firm one, shift one – hierarchical, firm one, shift two – team stage 3, and firm two, shift two – team stage 2) independently. The intragroup communication data was summed and averaged across the 12 questions (questions 30 – 41 on the survey in Appendix B), the role ambiguity data was also summed and averaged by respondent and in an overall fashion as previously stated. In addition, the role ambiguity mean scores were reversed for this portion of the analysis, so that low role ambiguity scores would be considered favorable and high role ambiguity mean scores would be unfavorable in order to understand the possible relationship between intragroup communication and role ambiguity and to produce the scatter diagrams properly.

Several scatter diagrams provide graphic representations of the data in figures 8 and 9. Figure 8 shows the overall analysis for all respondents, where the Pearson r for the overall data was -.045, and is not statistically significant at the a .05 level. Table 15 shows the output of the correlational analysis for the overall data. Figure 9 shows the scatter diagram for the firm one, shift two (team stage 3) group. As indicated in Table 16,

Figure 8. Intragroup communication and role ambiguity scatter plot for all data (n = 111, r = -.045, not significant at a .05 level).

Table 15

Role Ambiguity and Intragroup Communication (overall)

		Role Ambiguity	Intragroup Communication
Role Ambiguity	Pearson Correlation	1	-.045
(Reversed)	Sig. (1-tailed)	.	.318
	N	111	111
Intragroup	Pearson Correlation	-.045	1
Communication	Sig. (1-tailed)	.318	.
(Summed)	N	111	111

Figure 9. Intragroup communication and role ambiguity scatter plot for firm one, shift two, team in stage 3 of development (n = 36, r = -.427, significant at a .01 level).

Table 16

Role Ambiguity and Intragroup Communication (firm 1, shift 2 – team stage 3)

		Role Ambiguity	Intragroup Communication
Role Ambiguity
Pearson Correlation	1	.427**
(Reversed)
Sig. (1-tailed)	.	.005

N	36	36
Intragroup
Pearson Correlation	.427**	1
Communication
Sig. (1-tailed)	.005	.
(Summed)
N	36	36

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

the Pearson r for this subset of data was .427, and is significant at the a .01 level. This is an interesting finding, since a relationship was found and because the relationship was positive and significant – at least for this group, as intragroup communication levels rise role ambiguity levels rise.

Alternative hypothesis seven was not accepted. Increases in intragroup communication levels did not significantly decrease role ambiguity levels. Null hypothesis seven was accepted. The overall analysis incorporating all respondent data showed no correlation between intragroup communication and role ambiguity. However, a weak but positive and statistically significant relationship was found between role ambiguity and intragroup communication levels at the a .01 level for the team in stage 3.

A question was raised in the assumptions and limitations section of Chapter 3, of whether or not the six Hispanic respondents from firm one, shift two would be enough alike the other respondents in their attitudes to include their responses in the data analysis. T-tests were conducted on the responses of the Hispanic group comparing them to all of the remaining firm one shift two respondents across the three survey areas of interest: role ambiguity, group cohesion, and intragroup communication. In each case the Hispanic respondents showed no significant difference from the Anglo respondents. For the role ambiguity questions, the Hispanic group had a mean of 4.22 vs. the Anglo group’s mean of 4.04. The t-test returned a test score of -.803 and a significance level of .430 with 24 degrees of freedom. Similar results were found for group cohesion, the Hispanic group reporting a mean of 3.39 vs. a mean of 3.61 for the Anglo group. The group cohesion t-test showed no difference between the groups with a t-score of 1.235 and a significance level of .235 with 16 degrees of freedom. Last, the data for intragroup communication was compared. Here, the Hispanic group reported a mean of 3.17 vs. a mean of 3.42 for the Anglo group. The intragroup communication t-test showed no difference between the groups with a t-score of 1.539 and a significance level of .137 and 24 degrees of freedom.

Summary

This chapter has described the participants, instrument characteristics, data handling processes, and hypothesis test results in this study of role ambiguity, organizational structure, and performance. A total of 111 participants provided data on perceived role ambiguity, group cohesion, and intragroup communication levels present on their shift within their firms. Performance data in the form of units produced per shift and subgroup were provided by firm one.

The hypothesis test results indicate relationships between role ambiguity and performance at the departmental level and that role ambiguity levels differ for hierarchies and teams at different stages of development. Further results indicate relationships between role ambiguity and group cohesion and intragroup communication levels. Null hypotheses one though four and hypothesis six were rejected, and null hypotheses five and seven were accepted. Significant findings related to the null hypotheses are summarized in Table 17.

Table 17

Summary of Findings

Null Hypothesis Tested	Results
1. There is no relationship between role ambiguity and performance (Reject)	A significant (r = -.761, significance = .000 at the a .01 level), strong negative relationship exists between role ambiguity and performance.
2. There is no difference in role ambiguity levels between hierarchically organized and team based workers (Reject)	A statistically significant (t = -7.092, significance = .000 at the a .05 level), difference exists in self-reported role ambiguity levels for workers organized in teams vs. hierarchies. Role ambiguity is higher for new team members and lower for experienced team members than for workers organized hierarchically.
3. There is no difference in performance levels between hierarchically organized and team based workers (Reject)	A statistically significant (t = 2.16, significance = .043 at the a .05 level), difference exists in performance levels for workers organized in teams vs. hierarchies. The teams group was less productive than the hierarchical group during the early stages of team development.

Table 17

Summary of Findings (Continued)

Null Hypothesis Tested	Results
4. There is no difference in role ambiguity levels for teams at differing stages of development (Reject)	A statistically significant (t = -14.744, significance = .000 at the a .05 level), difference exists between role ambiguity levels for workers organized in teams that are in differing stages of development. The team in stage 3 of development reported significantly lower levels of role ambiguity than the team in stage 2 of development reported.
5. There is no difference in performance levels for teams at differing stages of development (Accept)	There is no statistically significant (t = -.814, significance = .428 at the a .05 level), difference in productivity levels between workers organized in teams that are in differing stages of development (stage 1 of team development compared to stage 2 of team development). Productivity differences did exist, (stage 2 group had higher levels of productivity than the stage 1 group) but, the differences were not statistically significant however.

Table 17

Summary of Findings (Continued)

Null Hypothesis Tested	Results
6. There is no relationship between group cohesion and role ambiguity (Reject)	A weak, but statistically significant (r = -.381, significance = .000 at the a .01 level), relationship exists between role ambiguity and group cohesion.
7. There is no relationship between intragroup communication and role ambiguity (Accept)	No correlation was found between role ambiguity and intragroup communication (r = -.045, significance = .636 at the a .05 level), however, a statistically significant (r = .427, significance = .009 at the a .01 level), and positive relationship between intragroup communication and role ambiguity was found for the team in stage 3 of development.

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter summarizes the problem under review, the literature reviewed in support of the study, and the methodology employed to conduct the study. The conclusions gleaned from each of these components will be shared. The limitations of the study will be discussed, and finally, the recommendations for both practioners and future researchers in this area of study will be made.

The present study provided a longitudinal assessment of the implications of changes to organizational structure. Specifically, the impacts on role ambiguity and work group performance were measured. In addition, possible moderators of role ambiguity, including group cohesion, and intragroup communication were explored. The results suggest that firms should be concerned about creating role ambiguity through structural changes made in the organization. Ankarlo (1994) has indicated that there is a paucity of knowledge on the impact of participation in self-managed teams on employee attitudes and behaviors. This study is among only a few that have addressed Ankarlo’s concerns and that have measured linkages between performance, group moderator variables, and work team structures.

Role ambiguity has been defined as a lack of clear information about job responsibilities and expectations (Kahn, et al., 1964). Role ambiguity has been linked to many negative outcomes for individuals and organizations, such as lower job satisfaction, frustration, anxiety, propensity to leave, and reduced individual and group productivity (Bedian & Armenakis, 1981; Van Sell, et al., 1981). One of the current responses that organizations are turning to to deal with environmental pressures is self-directed work teams (SDWTs). SDWTs are permanent, interdependent, relatively small, highly autonomous work groups that take complete responsibility for a product, project, or service (Becker-Reems, 1994; Salem, 1992).

As firms adopt these organizational designs, the basic framework of the hierarchical (top down) structure is typically abandoned in favor of greater flexibility. A question for researchers, however, is what is the price of this flexibility? The present study has shown that one price of flexibility may be increased role ambiguity. The role clarity that is present in the command and control hierarchy may be sacrificed if firms are not careful during structural transition periods.

The present study found that role clarity may be critical for organizational success. The present study employed a need for clarity index developed by Lyons (1971). The need for clarity index consisted of four questions each with five alternatives ranging from “not important at all” to “very important”. In summing the values given by each respondent across all four questions, the possible range was from 4 to 20. The actual range in Lyons (1971) study was 7 to 20 and the median score was 17, which he indicated “a high degree of expressed importance” (p.104). In the present study the need for clarity index ranged from 12 to 20, with a median score of 18. This finding is consistent with Lyons’ work, and indicates that the participants in this study consider role clarity to be very important to them. This is consistent with the work of Bray & Brawley (2002), who conclude that individuals who reported higher role clarity performed better than those with lower role clarity.

The need for clarity finding coupled with the results of hypothesis one, which showed a relatively strong (-.761) and linear negative correlation between role ambiguity and work group performance provides evidence that organizations should not undertake changes without considering the impact of ambiguity levels that may result (Rayner, 1996). Tracking what goes on in team settings can be helpful too. In the study by Thomson & Bobbe (1993), the president of the firm under review discussed his decision to release the detailed financial results for the firm, and indicated that clarity was a motivator and that ambiguity was demotivating for his workforce.

Conclusions

The present study established that a negative relationship exists between role ambiguity and work group performance. In evaluating the data for hypothesis one, the productivity levels of work groups that reported higher levels of role ambiguity were lower than those that reported less ambiguity. This was consistent with the findings of Tubre & Collins (2000), but at a higher level of significance. This finding answers some of Nygaard & Dahlstrom’s issues (2002) - who indicated that a strong direct relationship between ambiguity and performance has not been supported by the literature. While the generalizability of this finding is limited and a direct cause and effect can not be claimed, organizations must recognize that at least short-term negative impacts to productivity may result from a move from a hierarchical structure to a team-based structure. However, given time the structural change may actually reduce job stress (Pattanayak, 2002). In addition, this correlation (r = -.761, a .05) suggests that reductions in role ambiguity could have a positive impact on job performance (Tubre & Collins, 2000).

The correlation between role ambiguity and performance is also supported by the findings in hypothesis three, which showed a statistically significant difference between the productivity of the hierarchical group and the teams group, with the hierarchy showing higher levels of productivity than the newly formed team. Further, in evaluating hypothesis five, it was discovered that the productivity level of the team changed over time and improved as the team developed more fully. This was consistent with the expectations developed upon the establishment of a negative correlation between role ambiguity and performance that had been established earlier. As role ambiguity levels decline, performance should improve. All of these ideas seem to be consistent with Ford & Randolph’s (1992) ideas “If roles are not clearly defined, the organization invites unnecessary and unproductive conflict due to the resulting ambiguity” (p. 281). There is an indication here that time in the team formation process may be a major factor – that the evolutionary self-managed team process may yield different results at different time periods.

There is hope for organizations that demonstrate patience in allowing the teams the time necessary to develop more fully. The results of hypotheses two and four indicate that teams in early stages of development experience higher levels of role ambiguity than hierarchically organized workers. This is consistent with the findings of Joyce (1986), who found that role ambiguity increased after the introduction of a matrix organizational structure. However, the results also showed that the team entering stage 3 of the development process reported lower role ambiguity levels than the hierarchical group. This team was approximately 18 months into the teams’ development process, and has operated within the team based organizing methodology for only 12 months.

Figures 10 and 11 illustrate these points graphically (and project beyond the current study) for role ambiguity levels and productivity levels, respectively. A system of gradual change and patience with changes is supported by Capozzoli (2002), Elmuti (1997), Davis & Lawrence (1977), Galbraith, (1971), and Thomson & Bobbe (1993).

Given the linkage between role ambiguity and performance established in this study, one could speculate that the performance of the team as they progress through stage 3 and into stage 4 may exceed the performance of the hierarchical group, which is one of the rationales for adopting the team-based structures in the first place (Chaudron, 1995). The questions that firms need to answer are how long are they willing to wait for the positive benefits of the team structure and are they willing to pay the short term costs (training, team meetings) to achieve the possible long run productivity and cost advantages of greater output and efficiency? Inadequate training was noted by Beck & Yeager (1996) as a possible reason for teams based structures failing to produce results – at least immediately.

Ford & Randolph (1992) also noted that the organization making the changes from one structure to another faces a dilemma. Basically, when the new structure is chosen, the benefits of the old structure are often lost. Many teams fail or are abandoned by firms before they have been given adequate resources or time to mature properly (Bubshait & Farooq, 1999; Clemmer, 1993; Elmuti, 1997; Marchetti, 1997; Thomson & Bobbe, 1993). Capozzoli (2002) notes that many organizations also do not devote enough time to the team effort, and that they get into the middle of the change and then they run out of time or money. Similarly, some organizations may suffer from the effects of excessive change. Stensaker, Meyer, Falkenberg, & Haueng (2002) define excessive

Figure 10. Self-reported role ambiguity levels at baseline timeframe (hierarchical and team in stage 1 of development), and during team development (stages 2 & 3), as well as a projection of possible role ambiguity levels in the latter stages of team development (stages 4 & 5).

Figure 11. Firm one productivity data for baseline timeframe through the end of stage 2 of team development (H = Hierarchically Organized, T1 = Team in stage 1 of development, T2 = Team in stage 2 of development). Note the performance gap that begins in April 2001 as shift two began stage 2 of team development. The gap has closed by April 2002, the beginning of stage 3 of team development. Looking to the future, one hypothesis may be that the team group’s productivity will surpass the hierarchical group’s productivity as the team continues through stage 3 and into stage 4 of the team development process.

change as situations where “the organization introduces new changes before the previous change is completed” or when “the organization pursues several, seemingly unrelated and sometimes conflicting, changes at the same time” (p. 12). The consequences of excessive change seem to be similar to those identified above as being related to role ambiguity, they include frustration, anger, job dissatisfaction, lack of motivation, stress, physical and psychological health problems, feelings of uncertainty about the situation, about one’s own job, and about one’s competence and adequacy (Stensaker, et al., 2002). Perhaps the differences in these concepts, and there effects, can be clarified in the future.

Some organizations may also have top managers that simply do not understand the dynamics of team formation and development (Moskal, 1997). Clemmer (1993) and Juran (1993) note that much of the work of team building is delegated to the front-line managers who may not be prepared or trained to take on such responsibilities. Juran (1993) refers to this as separating planning from execution. Short-term, financially driven thinking is often behind this “delegating a rush to results” (Hall, 2001; Hay & Kashefi, 1985; Russell, 1996; Dobrzynski, Schiller, Miles, Norman, & King, 1986).

Keller (1986) found that group cohesiveness had a positive relationship with project group performance. The findings of the present study are close to Keller’s results. A weak, but statistically significant negative relationship was, at least, found between group cohesion and role ambiguity. This would suggest that higher levels of group cohesion might lead to lower role ambiguity and therefore to increased performance. This finding is consistent with Evans & Dion (1991) and Mullen & Cooper (1994) who found small but positive relationships between group cohesion and group performance. Chang & Bordia (2001) found group cohesion to be an antecedent to group performance vs. an outcome of group performance. The relationship between group cohesion and role ambiguity, as both of these are factors in performance, should be examined further.

Allen, Lee, & Tushman (1980) found no significant difference in project group performance and the amount of intragroup communications that took place. The present study found no link between intragroup communication and role ambiguity levels, which is similar to some of Allen et al.’s findings. The present results are also consistent with the work of Tubre & Collins (2000), who found that intragroup communication was a moderator of role conflict, but did not moderate role ambiguity levels. It would seem, then, that increasing intragroup communication levels may not affect role ambiguity levels or necessarily lead to increases in performance.

Limitations/Delimitations

The ability to generalize the findings of this study is limited due to the quasi-experimental design employed. In addition, the nature of the organizational environment (manufacturing) examined reduced generalizability. Further, pre-existing conditions, such as differences in people who work first shift vs. second shift described by Cook & Campbell (1979) may have served as threats to internal validity, known as selection concerns. These authors indicate, “selection is therefore pervasive in quasi-experimental research, which is defined in terms of different groups receiving different treatments as opposed to probabilistically equivalent groups receiving treatments as in the randomized experiment” (p. 53). These selection issues may include training levels and development activities employed by the firms studied prior to the period under review, or they may have been unknown factors that impacted differences in the groups studied.

Cook & Campbell (1979) describe “history” as a threat to internal validity. History, as defined by Cook & Campbell would be any outside event that occurs during the data collection process. Due to the longitudinal nature of the productivity data used in this study, history is another possible threat to validity. This may be especially applicable to the productivity data, as the firms under review were in growth phases of their lifecycle. In addition, the researcher in this study may have impacted the results through interactions with the participants over the course of the study.

Recommendations

Implications for Practioners

The present study identifies and highlights several areas of possible interest and concern for practicing managers. The performance of work groups is of obvious concern to practioners. The findings here that linked role ambiguity to performance should increase practioner awareness of the need for clarity for their workers (the greater the ambiguity, the lower the performance). Much like a stone thrown into a pond, the ripple effects of organizational structure changes may permeate the organization and impact it in unintended ways. Similarly, several of the effects here suggest that the “effects” in teams often happen in evolutionary time periods (role ambiguity is higher for new teams, performance seems worse during early periods of development, ambiguity may decrease over time in groups, productivity increase may take more time than in the present study).

Certainly, before any structural changes are undertaken for whatever reason, practioners should evaluate and attempt to quantify the possible short and long run implications of team efforts, so the changes and results of the changes can be viewed in the proper context. Having clear directions from top management, and clear objectives for the change process, may help to alleviate ambiguity during the implementation phase of the redesign efforts (Elmuti, 1997).

Organizations should attempt to identify ways to increase group cohesion as a way to moderate the effects of ambiguity brought on by structural changes. Increasing group cohesion levels (greater trust and reliance on each other) may have positive effects on role ambiguity, and job satisfaction (Keller, 1986). As intragroup communication has not been tied to improvements in performance or reductions in role ambiguity, perhaps practicing managers could reevaluate the amount of time spent in meetings that are strictly employed to increase communication within the team. Meetings such as these may be better served by implementing group cohesion activities across teams or work groups.

Directions for Future Research

Future research is necessary to identify if and when self-directed work teams “cross-over” and become more productive than the hierarchies that spawn them. Elmuti (1997) has suggested that the team may reach a performance plateau and that the structural change may end up having much less of an impact than originally intended by management under some circumstances. The expectation, given the findings here, would indicate that at some point during the 3rd or 4th phase of team development mature teams may have greater productivity than the hierarchical structure. This is clearly, yet to be tested.

While a long studied construct, our knowledge of role ambiguity in contemporary organizations with new structures, such as the use of teams, needs to be updated to reflect the organizations of the 21st century. Additional experimental and prospective studies are recommended to expand our knowledge of the interactions between role variables, performance variables, and including moderator variables (group cohesion, intragroup communication, etc.) and the attributes of role ambiguity have been inadequately examined to date. Multidimensional instruments developed by Singh & Rhoads (1991), and Sawyer (1992) need to be further utilized and validated. Similarly, the phases of team development, under various stages of role ambiguity, cohesion, etc., and various outcomes need to be examined further.

In reviewing contingency theories of organizational design, mention must be given to the possible negative impacts of undertaking massive change efforts. The literature must be updated to reflect the experiences of firms that have employed various alternative approaches. Finally, future researchers should consider replicating this study in other organizational settings and with other types of workers.

Summary

Role ambiguity remains an important construct for researchers and practioners. This may be particularly more true now due to the organizational changes that are being implemented in response to globalization and numerous other challenges (Elmuti, 1997; Heckscher, 1994; Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1994; McCalman, 1996). Changes to organizational structures are possible sources of increased role ambiguity created by organizations. Considering the possible links between role ambiguity and performance, organizations should recognize these issues before the structure changes (for instance – teams) are implemented. Once the decision has been made to move to self-directed work team structures, the stages of team development and the time and management support needed to navigate them should be carefully considered and data should be collected to monitor the process.

Role ambiguity should continue to be considered an important variable in the evaluation of motivation and job performance (Tubre & Collins, 2000). To quote Colonel James Rusling, speaking about Ulysses S. Grant – “He made certain that his subordinates knew exactly what he wanted, and why, and when he wanted it.” While Grant’s Presidency is not looked upon by history as a model, he never lost a battle during the U. S. Civil War, which is a model of performance that may have resulted from low levels of role ambiguity among his officers and troops.

References

Allen, T. J., Lee, D., & Tushman, M. (1980). R & D project management, and the nature of work, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 27, 2 – 12.

Amram, M., & Kulatilaka, N. (1999). Uncertainty: The new rules for strategy, Journal of Business Strategy, May/June, 25 – 29.

Anderson, A. B. (1975). Combined effects of interpersonal attraction and goal-path clarity on the cohesiveness of task oriented groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31, 68 – 75.

Anderson, C. R. (1976). Coping behaviors as intervening mechanisms in the inverted-U stress-performance relationship, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 30 – 34.

Ankarlo, L. (1994). The best value in training, Career Track, 4, 12 – 16.

Asch, D., & Bowman, C. (1989). Readings in strategic management, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions, Academy of Management Review, 25, 472 – 491.

Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Howell, J. M., & Atwater, L. E. (2002). A structural equation analysis of performance in face-to-face and virtual teams. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO.

Banton, M. (1965). Roles: An introduction to the study of social relations. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62 – 78.

Bauer, J. C., & Spenser, J. (2001). Role ambiguity and role clarity: A comparison of attitudes in Germany and the United States, Unpublished manuscript.

Becker-Reems, E. D. (1994). Self-managed work teams in health care organizations, American Hospital Association, American Hospital Publishing, Inc.

Bedeian, A. G. & Armenakis, A. A. (1981). A path-analytic study of the consequences of role conflict and ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 417 - 424.

Bedeian, A. G., Mossholder, K. W., & Armenakis, A. A. (1983). Role perception-outcome relationships: Moderating effects of situational variables, Human Relations, 36, 167 – 184.

Beehr, T. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Social support and occupational stress: talking to supervisors’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 61 – 81.

Beehr, T. A., Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review, Personnel Psychology, 31, 665 – 699.

Belbin, M. (1993). Team roles at work, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups, New York: Basic Books.

Blancett, S. S. (1994). Self-managed teams: The reality and the promise, Health Care Supervision, 12, 48 – 55.

Blau, G. (1981). An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, service length, and job strain, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 279 – 302.

Bourgeois, L. J. (1985). Strategic goals, perceived uncertainty, and economic performance in volatile environments, Academy of Management Journal, 28, 548 – 573.

Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (1996). Tracking patterns of realized strategy, Journal of General Management, 21, 59 - 73.

Brannick, M. T., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (1997). Team performance assessment and measurement. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bray, S. R., & Brawley (2002). Role efficacy, role clarity, and role performance effectiveness, Small Group Research, 33, 233 – 253.

Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (1976). Correlates of role indices, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 468 - 472.

Brodie, J. (1989). The payoff from teamwork, Business Week, July 10, 57 – 62.

Brown, T. (1993). The new science of leadership, Industry Week, 242(2), 15 – 22.

Buchanan, D. (1987). Job enrichment is dead: Long live high-performance work design, Personnel Management, May, 40 – 43.

Buchko, A. A. (1994). Conceptualization and measurement of environmental uncertainty: An assessment of the Miles and Snow perceived environmental uncertainty scale, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 410 - 425.

Buckenmeyer, J. A. (1996). Self-managed teams: Some operational difficulties, Industrial Management, September/October, 10 – 14.

Burke, M. J., & Borucki, C. C. (1993). Does a climate for service matter? A test of a multiple stakeholder model of the service climate-organizational performance prediction problem, Unpublished manuscript.

Bushe, G. R., Havlovic, S. J., & Coetzer, G. (1996). Exploring empowerment from the inside-out, Journal of Quality and Participation, 19, 36 - 49.

Carpenter, M. A., & Fredickson, J. W. (2001). Top management teams, global strategic posture, and the moderating role of uncertainty, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 533 – 545.

Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship, Small Group Research, 32, 379 – 405.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite, Journal of Management, 23, 239 – 252.

Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47, 13 – 43.

Constantinides, G. H., Tscharner, D., Kalpowsky, D., & Baker-Priebe, R. (1994). Increasing autonomy: A self-directed MICU, Nursing Management, 25, 32C, 32H.

Cook, J. D. (1981). The experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use, New York: Academic Press.

Cooper, C. L., Dyck, B., Frohlich, N. (1992). Improving the effectiveness of gainsharing: The role of fairness and participation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 471 – 490.

Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. (1977). Understanding executive stress, New York: PBI.

Cooper, C., & Payne, R. (1978). Stress at work, New York: Wiley.

Coppersmith, L., & Grubbs, A. (1998). Team-building: The whole may be less than the sum of its parts, Human Resource Professional, 11, 10 – 14.

Daniels, K., & Bailey A. (1999). Strategy development processes and participation in decision-making: Predictors of role stressors and job satisfaction, Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8, 27 – 42.

David, F. R., Pearce, J. A., II, & Randolph, W. A. (1989). Linking technology and structure to enhance group performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 233 – 241.

Davis, S. M., & Lawrence, P. R. (1977). Matrix, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.

Deeter-Schmelz, D. R. (1997). Applying teams to logistics processes: Information acquisition and the impact of team role clarity and norms, Journal of Business Logistics, 18, 159 – 178.

de Forest, M. E. (1994). Thinking of a plant in Mexico?, Academy of Management Executive, 8, 33 – 40.

Denis, J-L., Langley, A., & Cazale, L. (1996). Leadership and strategic change under ambiguity, Organization Studies, 17, 673 – 699.

Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., & Kahn, J. A. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1005 – 1023.

DeSanctis & Poole (1997). Transitions in teamwork in new organizational forms. In B. Markovsky, M. J. Lovaglia, L. Troyer, & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Advances in Group Processes, (pp. 157 – 176). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Domke-Damonte, D. (2001). Language learning and international business, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 66, 35 – 40.

Donovan, M. (1994). The empowerment plan, The Journal for Quality and Participation, 17, 12 - 14.

Dougherty, T. W., & Pritchard, R. D. (1985). The measurement of role variables: Exploratory examination of a new approach, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 141 – 155.

Dumaine, B. (1991). The bureaucracy busters, Fortune, June 17, 38.

Dunphy, D., & Bryant, B. (1996). Teams: Panaceas or prescriptions for improved performance?, Human Relations, 49, 677 – 699.

Ehin, C. (1995). The ultimate advantage of self-organizing systems, Journal of Quality and Participation, 18, 30 – 38.

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communications, Communication Monographs, 51, 227 – 242.

Engdahl, R. A., Keating, R. J., & Aupperle, K. E. (2000). Strategy and structure : Chicken or egg ?, Organization Development Journal, 18, 21 – 33.

Erera, I. P. (1992). Social support under conditions of organizational ambiguity, Human Relations, 45, 247 – 259.

Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis, Small Group Research, 22, 175 – 186.

Fenlason, K. J. (1989). The effects of contents of supportive communications on work stress: A replication and extension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Fenlason, K. J., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Social support and occupational stress: Effects of talking to others’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 157 – 175.

French, J. R. P., & Caplan, R. D. (1972). Organizational stress and individual strain, A. Marrow (Ed.), The failure of success, New York: AMACOM.

Fisher, C. D. & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320 - 333.

Ford, R. C., & Randolph, W. A. (1992). Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of matrix organization and project management, Journal of Management, 18, 267 – 294.

Forte, M., Hoffman, J. J., Lamont, B. T., Brockmann, E. N. (2000). Organizational form and environment: An analysis of between-form and within-form responses to environmental change, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 753 - 773.

Freeman, R. B. (1976). The Overeducated American, New York: Academic Press.

Galbraith, J. R. (1971). Matrix organization designs, Business Horizons, 14, 29 – 40.

Garson, B. E., & Stanwyck, D. J. (1997). Locus of control and incentive in self-managing teams, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8, 247 – 258.

Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures, Academy of Management Journal, 42, 138 – 152.

Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499 – 517.

Goldman, S., & Kahnweiler, W. M. (2000). A collaborator profile for executives in nonprofit organizations, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10, 435 – 450.

Goldstein, N. B. (1996). Group role ambiguity: The dark side of work groups (Doctoral dissertation, Tulane University, 1996), Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI-B 57/07, p.4760.

Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). The impact of collectivism and in-group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1097 – 1106.

Goodman, P. S., Devadas, S., & Hughson, T. L. (1988). Groups and productivity: Analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P. Campbell, R. J. Campbell & Associates (Eds.), Productivity in organizations (pp. 295 – 327), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goren, H., & Bornstein, G. (2000). The effects of intragroup communication on intergroup cooperation in the repeated intergroup prisoner’s dilemma (IPD) game, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44, 700 – 719.

Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Behavior in organizations. 6^th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness, Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307 – 338.

Hackman, J. R. (1976). Group influence on individuals. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, pp. 1455 – 1525, Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams, In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior, 315 – 342, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hackman, J. R. (Ed.) (1990), Groups that work: And those that don’t, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals and organizations, In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume 3: (pp.199 – 268). Consulting Psychology Press: Palo Alto, CA.

Heckscher, C. (1994). Defining the post-bureaucratic type. In C. Heckscher and A Donnellon (Eds.), The Post-bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on Organizational Change (pp. 14 – 62), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Herbst, P. (1974). Sociotechnical design, London: Tavislock Publications.

Herschel, R. T., & Andrews, P. H., (1993). Empowering employees in group work, The Executive’s Journal, 9, 36 – 42.

Hirschhorn, L., & Gilmore, T. (1992). The new boundaries of the “boundaryless company”, Harvard Business Review, May-June, 104 – 115.

Ho, J. T. S. (1995). The Singapore executive: Stress, personality, and well-being, The Journal of Management Development, 11(4), 47 – 55.

Hoerr, J. (1989). The payoff from teamwork, Business Week, July 10, 56 – 62.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management Science, 40, 4 - 13.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Brief, A. P. (1987). The effects of individual differences and goal origin on goal setting and performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 392 – 414.

House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321.

House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 467 – 505.

House, R. J., Schuler, R. S., & Levanoni, E. (1983). Role conflict and ambiguity scales: Reality or artifacts?, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 334 – 337.

Huber, V. L. (1981). Managing stress for increased productivity, Supervisory Management, 26(12), 2 – 12.

Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1992). The structure of work: Job design and roles, In M. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, pp. 165 – 207, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. (1974). A study of role clarity and the need for clarity for three occupational groups, Academy of Management Journal, 17, 28 – 36.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1994). The global network organization of the future: Information management opportunities and challenges, Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 25 – 57.

Jackson, S. E. (1983). Participation in decision making as a strategy for reducing job-related strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 3 – 19.

Jackson, S. E. and Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16 - 78.

Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assessment, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 33, 1 – 21.

Jamal, M. (1985). Relationship of job stress to job performance: A study of managers and blue-collar workers, Human Relations, 38, 409 – 424.

Jannotta, M., & Maldonado, T. (1992). Self-management for nurses, Journal of Nursing Administration, 22, 59 – 63.

Johnson, S. J. (1994). Connecting diversity efforts in the workplace with business mission, goals, and objectives. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7, 31 - 39.

Joyce, W. E. (1986). Matrix organization: A social experiment, Academy of Management Jounral, 29, 536 – 561.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Occupational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

Kanter, R. M. (1989). The new managerial work, Harvard Business Review, 66, 85 – 92.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285 – 308.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations, New York: Wiley.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations, 2^nd ed., New York: Wiley.

Katzenback, A. L., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization, Boston, MA: Harvard University Business Press.

Keller, R. T. (1975). Role conflict and ambiguity: Correlates with job satisfaction and values. Personnel Psychology, 28, 57 - 64.

Keller, R. T. (1986). Predictors of the performance of project groups in R & D organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 29, 715 – 726.

Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 547 – 555.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58 -74.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness, Academy of Management Review, 22, 730 – 757.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 557 – 569.

Klein, S. (1995). Teams under stress: The effects of work pressures and management action, IIE Solutions, May, 34 – 41.

Klenke-Hamel, K. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (1990). Role strains, tension, and job satisfaction influences on employees' propensity to leave: A multi-sample replication and extension, Human Relations, 43, 791 – 807.

Knight, D., Durham, C. C., & Locke, E. A. (2001). The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 326 – 338.

Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in productivity. In Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 282 – 318), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self-management: Individual and group autonomy in work groups, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 563 – 585.

LaRocco, J. M., House, J. S., & French, J. R. P. (1980). Social support, occupational stress, and health, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 202 – 218.

Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S., & Ledford, G. E. (1995). Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total quality management in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E. E. (1994). Total quality management and employee involvement: Are they compatible? The Academy of Management Executive, 8, 68 – 76.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of groups, Academy of Management Review, 26, 67 – 84.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Locke, E. A., & Somers, R. L. (1987). The effects of goal emphasis on performance on a complex task, The Journal of Management Studies, 24, 405 – 411.

Lowendahl, B. & Revang, O. (1998). Challenges to existing strategy in a postindustrial society, Strategic Management Journal, 19, 755 – 773.

Lyons, T. F. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 99 - 110.

Malone, T. W., Morton, M. S., & Halperin, R. R. (1996). Organizing for the 21^st century, Strategy & Leadership, July/August, 6 – 10.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building high performance companies, New York: Wiley.

March, J. G. (1987). Ambiguity and accounting: The elusive link between information and decision making, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 12, 153 – 168.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temorally based framework and taxonomy of team processes, Academy of Management Review, 26, 356 – 376.

Martocchio, J. L., & O’Leary, A. M. (1989). Sex differences and occupational stress: A meta-analytic review, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 495 – 501.

Massey, J. E. (2001). Managing organizational legitimacy: Communication strategies for organizations in crisis, The Journal of Business Communication, 38, 153 – 183.

Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Controlling Work Stress: Effective Human Resource and Management Strategies, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

McCalman, J. (1996). Lateral hierarchy: The case of cross-cultural management teams, European Management Journal, 14, 509 – 517.

McCune, J. (1990). Consensus builder, Success, October, 43 – 45.

McDonald, L. M., & Korabik, K. (1991). Sources of stress and ways of coping among male and female managers. In Perrewe, P. L. (Ed.), Handbook on job stress. (pp. 185 – 199), New York: Select Press.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Group interaction and performance, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

McKinley, W., & Scherer, A. G. (2000). Some unanticipated consequences of organizational restructuring, Academy of Management Review, 25, 735 – 752.

Meyerson, D., Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views, Journal of Management Studies, 24, 623 – 647.

Miles, R. H. (1975). An empirical test of causal inference between role perceptions of conflict and ambiguity and various personal outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 334 - 339.

Miles, R. H., & Perrault, W. D. (1976). Organizational role conflict: Its antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 19 - 44.

Miles, R. H., & Petty, M. M. (1975). Relationships between role clarity, need for clarity, and job-tension and satisfaction for supervisory and nonsupervisory roles, Academy of Management Journal, 18, 877 – 883.

Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty, Academy of Management Review, 12, 133 – 143.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). Fall and rise of strategic planning, Harvard Business Review, 72, 107 – 114.

Mitchell, T. R., & Silver, W. S. (1990). Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: Effects on task strategies and performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 185 – 193.

Moran, L., Musselwhite, E., Orsburn, J. D., & Zenger, J. H. (2000). The new self-directed work teams: Mastering the challenge, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, Jr., B. B., Salas, E., Glickman, A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation, The Journal of General Psychology, 120, 277 – 292.

Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618 – 629.

Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration, Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210 – 227.

Murphy, J. A., & Hallinger, P. (1984). Policy analysis at the local level: A framework for expanded investigation, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6, 5 – 13.

Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). Stress in the workplace: A comparison of gender and occupations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 63 – 73.

Nataraajan, R., Boulton, W. R., & Balakrishnan, P. V. (2000). Classifying strategic alternatives, American Business Review, January, 55 – 61.

Nemeth, C. J. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more, California Management Review, 40, 59 – 74.

Nemeth, C. J., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The trade-offs of social control and innovation within groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 22, (pp. 175 – 210), New York: Academic Press.

Newton, T. J., & Keenan, A. (1987). Role stress reexamined: An investigation of role stress predictors, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 346 – 368.

Nicholls, C. E., Lane, H. W., & Brechu, M. B. (1999). Taking self-managed teams to Mexico, Academy of Management Executive, 13, 15 – 25.

Nygaard, A., & Dahlstrom, R. (2002). Role stress and effectiveness in horizontal alliances, Journal of Marketing, 66, 61 – 82.

Ogilvie, D. T. (1998). Creative action as a dynamic strategy: Using imagination to improve strategic solutions in unstable environments, Journal of Business Research, 41, 49 – 56.

O’Leary-Kelly, S. W., & Vokurka, R. J. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct validity, Journal of Operations Management, 16, 387 – 405.

O’Reilly, C., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21 – 37.

Orsburn, J. D., Moran, L., Musselwhite, E., & Zenger, J. H. (1990). Self-directed work teams: The new American challenge, Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.

Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization, Academy of Management Review, 15, 203 – 223.

Ostroff, F., & Smith, D. (1992). The horizontal organization, The McKinsey Quarterly, 1992, 148 – 168.

Oswald, S. L., Mossholder, K .W., & Harris, S. G. (1997). Relations between strategic involvement and managers’ perceptions of environment and competitive strengths, Group & Organization Management, 22, 343 – 365.

Ouchi, W. G. (1978). Coupled versus uncoupled control in organizational hierarchies. In M. W. Meyer & Associates (Eds.), Environments and organizations, pp. 264 – 289, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ozer, E. M., & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472 – 486.

Parasuraman, A. (1981). Role clarity and job satisfaction in purchasing, Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 17, 2 – 7.

Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1981). An examination of the organizational antecedents of stressors at work, Academy of Management Journal, 24, 48 – 67.

Pattanayak, B. (2002). Effects of shiftwork and hierarchical position in the organization on psychological correlates: A study on an integrated steel plant, Organization Development Journal, 20, 71 – 82.

Paul, J., & Strbiak, C. A. (1997). The ethics of strategic ambiguity, The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 149 – 159.

Pearson, C. A. L. (1991). An assessment of extrinsic feedback on participation, role perceptions, motivation, and job satisfaction in a self-managed system for monitoring group achievement, Human Relations, 44, 517 – 537.

Perrewe, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. (1989). The impact of job demands and behavioral control on experienced job stress, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 213 – 229.

Peters, T. (1992). Liberation management: Necessary Disorganization for the nanosecond nineties, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., & Callan, V. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 429 - 445.

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the workforce. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy, Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95 – 117.

Ritzer, G. (1996). The McDonaldization of society: An investigation into the changing character of contemporary social life, XX ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150 - 163.

Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Aggregation problems and organizational science. In D. W. Fiske (Ed.), Developing an interdisciplinary science of organizations, (pp. 81 – 109). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rothschild, J. & Whitt, J. A. (1986). The co-operative workplace: Potential and dilemmas of organizational democracy and participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task forming groups, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61 – 72.

Salem, M. A. (1992). Self-managing work teams: An international perspective, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 13(7), 3 – 8.

Sawyer, J. E. (1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 130 - 142.

Schriesheim (1980). The social context of leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects of group cohesiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 183 – 194.

Schuler, R. S. (1980). Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184 – 215.

Schuler, R. S., Aldag, R. J., & Brief, A. P. (1977). Role conflict and ambiguity: A scale analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 111 – 128.

Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices, Academy of Management Executive, 1, 207 – 219.

Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Shenkar, O., & Zeira, Y. (1992). Role conflict and role ambiguity of chief executive officers in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 23, 55 - 73.

Sheridan, J. H. (1990). America’s best plants, Industry Week, October 15, 27 – 64.

Simmons, J. (1989). Starting self-managing teams, Journal for Quality and Participation, December, 26 – 31.

Sinclair, A. (1992). The tyranny of a team ideology, Organization Studies, 13, 611 – 626.

Singh, J. (1998). Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: An investigation of some unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 62, 69 - 86.

Singh, J. and Rhoads, G. K. (1991). Boundary role ambiguity in marketing oriented positions: A multidimensional, multifaceted operationalization. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 328 - 338.

Singh, J., Verbeke, W., and Rhoads, G. K. (1996). Do organizational practices matter in role stress processes? A study of direct and moderating effects for marketing-oriented boundary spanners. Journal of Marketing, 60, 69 - 91.

Singh, P., & Bhandarker, A. (1983). Managerial role: The need for clarity, ASCI Journal of Management, 13, 35 – 56.

Smith, C. S., & Brannick, M. T. (1990). A role and expectancy model of participative decision-making: A replication and theoretical extension, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 91 – 104.

Spector, P. E., & O’Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of personality traits, negative affectivity, locus of control, and Type A to the subsequent reports of job stressors and job strains, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(1), 1 – 12.

Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1999). Developing effective self-managing work teams in service organizations. Group & Organization Management, 24, 340 – 366.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442 – 1465.

Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135 – 148.

Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management, Journal of Management, 20, 503 – 530.

Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership for self-managing work teams: A typology and integrative model, Human Relations, 48, 747 – 770.

Stone, M. M., & Brush, C. G. (1996). Planning in ambiguous contexts: The dilemma of meeting needs for commitment and demands for legitimacy, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 633 - 652.

Strauss, G. (1982). Workers participation in management: An international perspective. In B. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness, American Psychologist, 45, 120 – 133.

Thoits, P. A. (1982). Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical problems in studying social support as a buffer against life stress, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 23, 145 – 159.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment, Academy of Management Review, 15, 666 – 681.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tosi, H. (1971). Organization stress as a moderator of the relationship between influence and role response, Academy of Management Journal, 14, 7 - 20.

Tosi, H., & Tosi, D. (1970). Some correlates of role conflict and ambiguity among public school teachers, Journal of Human Relations, 18, 1068 - 1075.

Townsend, P. L., & Gebhardt, J. E. (1990). Quality-down to the roots, Journal for Quality and Participation, September, 6 – 8.

Trist, E. L. (1981). The sociotechnical perspective: The evolution of the sociotechnical systems as a conceptual framework and as an action research program, In A. Van de Ven & W. F. Joyce (Eds.), Perspectives on organization design and behavior, (pp. 19 – 75). New York: Wiley.

Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance, Journal of Management, 26, 155 – 169.

Twomey, D. F., & Harris, D. L. (2000). From strategy to corporate outcomes: Aligning human resource management systems with entrepreneurial intent, International Journal of Commerce & Management, 10, 43 – 55.

van Olffen, W., & Romme, G. L. (1995). The role of hierarchy in self-organizing systems, Human Systems Management, 14, 199 – 206.

Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relations, 34, 43 - 71.

Vanek, J. (1977). The labor-managed economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Vroom, V. H. (1960). Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 82 – 97.

Walker, C. R., & Guest, R. H. (1952). The man on the assembly line. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Waller, M. J., Conte, J. M., Gibson, C. B., & Carpenter, M. A. (2001). The effect of individual perceptions of deadlines on team performance, Academy of Management Review, 26, 586 – 600.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1 – 19.

Witt, A. L. (1992). Exchange ideology as a moderator of the relationships between importance of participation in decision making and job attitudes. Human Relations, 45, 73 - 84.

Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management, Journal of Management, 18, 295 – 320.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work, Academy of Management Review, 26, 179 – 201.

Yerkes, R. M. & Dodson J. (1908), The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation, Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-82.

Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesion and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality, Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 387 – 399.

Zaccaro, S. J., & McCoy, M. C. (1988). The effects of task and interpersonal cohesiveness on performance of a disjunctive group task, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 837 – 851.

Zelman, W. N., & McLaughlin, C. P. (1990). Product lines in a complex marketplace: Matching organizational strategy to buyer behavior, Health Care Management Review, 15, 9 – 14.

APPENDIX A

Participant Letter – English

April 29, 2002

Dear Participants:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for participating in my research project. My area of research interest is role stress, specifically evaluating the possible relationships between organizational structure, the resulting role ambiguity (if any) and the performance of employees in hierarchies and work teams. The purpose of this research is to evaluate your perceptions of the expectations placed upon you, the processes that you employ in completing your work, the priorities given to work assignments, your perceptions of expected work behaviors, and need for clarity.

The survey contains approximately 45 questions, and can be completed in about 10 minutes. Your participation is on a voluntary basis and you may withdraw at anytime without consequence. No risks are associated with this project. All comments, concerns, and survey responses remain strictly confidential and no names will be linked with the final data. Once collected these data will be handled in accordance with professional standards common in research fields in the United States. Please complete either the English or Spanish version of the survey and return it in the envelope provided.

This research project will assist me in completing my doctoral dissertation. If you would like to receive a copy of the research results, please feel free to contact me at jeff.bauer@uc.edu or via phone at 513-732-5257.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey C. Bauer

Principal Investigator

Enclosures: Survey Instrument

Return Envelope

APPENDIX B

Role Ambiguity/Role Clarity/Group Cohesion/Intragroup Communication Survey – English

APPENDIX C

Participant Letter – Spanish

29 de Abril de 2002

Estimados participantes:

Quisiera aprovechar esta oportunidad para agradecerles por participar en mi proyecto de investigación. Mi área de investigación es el estrés que se deriva de los diferentes roles; específicamente, la evaluación de las posibles relaciones entre la estructura de una organización, la ambigüedad (si existiera alguna) resultante del rol y el rendimiento de los empleados en las jerarquías y en los grupos de trabajo.

El propósito de esta investigación es evaluar sus opiniones sobre las expectativas puestas sobre usted, los procesos que usted emplea en terminar su trabajo, las prioridades dadas a las asignaciones del trabajo, sus opiniones sobre la conducta de trabajo esperada, y la necesidad por claridad.

La encuesta contiene aproximadamente 45 preguntas, y se puede terminar en cerca de 10 minutos. Su participación es voluntaria y usted puede retirarse en cualquier momento sin ninguna consecuencia. No hay ningún riesgo asociado con este proyecto. Todos los comentarios, preocupaciones, y respuestas a la encuesta permanecen estrictamente

confidenciales y no se conectará ninguno de los nombres con los datos finales.

Una vez que estén recogidos estos datos se manejaran de acuerdo con los requisitos profesionales comunes en campos de la investigación en los Estados Unidos.

Por favor, termine la versión en inglés o en español de la encuesta y devuélvala en el sobre adjunto.

Este proyecto de investigación me ayudará a terminar mi tesis doctoral. Si desea recibir una copia de los resultados de la investigación, póngase en contacto conmigo a través de mi e-mail jeff.bauer@uc.edu o por teléfono: 513-732-5257.

Atentamente,

Jeffrey C. Bauer

Investigador Principal

Adjuntos: Encuesta

Sobre

APPENDIX D

Role Ambiguity/Role Clarity/Group Cohesion/Intragroup Communication Survey – Spanish

Gender Male – 68.1% Female – 31.9%
Age
Under 20 years old	07.2%
20-24 years old	24.6%
25-29 years old	20.3%
30-34 years old	23.2%
35-39 years old	05.8%
40-49 years old	11.6%
50-59 years old	07.2%
Over 60 years old	00.0%

Tenure
Less than one year	36.2%
One year or longer, but less than 3 years	46.4%
Three years or longer, but less than 7 years	14.5%
Seven years or longer, but less than 15 years	02.9%
Fifteen years or longer	00.0%

Education
Grade school	2.9%
Some high school	17.4%
High school or GED	58.0%
Some college, but no degree	14.5%
Associate’s degree	7.2%

Gender Male – 73.8% Female – 23.8% Missing – 2.4%
Age
Under 20 years old	4.8%
20-24 years old	9.5%
25-29 years old	23.8%
30-34 years old	19.0%
35-39 years old	16.7%
40-49 years old	14.3%
50-59 years old	11.9%
Over 60 years old	0.0%

Tenure
Less than one year	11.9%
One year or longer, but less than 3 years	47.6%
Three years or longer, but less than 7 years	31.0%
Seven years or longer, but less than 15 years	09.5%
Fifteen years or longer	00.0%

Firm	Shift	Initial Sample Size	Number of Surveys Returned	Response Rate
1	1	38	33	86.8%
1	2	38	36	94.7%
2	2	45	42	93.3%

Education
Grade school	2.4%
Some high school	11.9%
High school or GED	71.4%
Some college, but no degree	9.5%
Associate’s degree	4.8%

Problem Background

Roles and Role Ambiguity

Organizational Structure

Purpose of the Study

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Limitations/Delimitations

Definitions

Importance of the Study

Role Ambiguity

Consequences of Role Ambiguity

Role Clarity

Measures of Role Ambiguity

Role Ambiguity and Performance

Moderators of Role Ambiguity

Personality

Cultural Differences

Gender Differences

Empowerment and Autonomy

Social Support

Organizational Structure and Role Ambiguity

Using Ambiguity to Achieve Organizational Objectives

Strategic Planning in Uncertain Environments

Hierarchical Organizations

Loosely Coupled Systems

Flexible Organizations

Self-Directed Work Teams

Team Roles and Role Clarity

Self-Directed Work Teams – The Background

Benefits of SDWTs

Drawbacks of SDWTs

Hierarchy vs. Teams

Teams in Modern Organizations

Support for Teams with Strong Leadership and “Hierarchical Communications”

Teams and Performance

Moderators of Role Ambiguity in Team Settings

Autonomy and Teams

Cultural Diversity and Teams

Evaluation and Reward Systems

Task Interdependence and Cohesion

Feedback

Integration of Role Ambiguity and Teams

Impact of Organizational Restructuring

Role Ambiguity/Restructuring and Teams

Role Ambiguity at Various Levels of Analysis

Summary

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Sample Size and Response Rates by Firm

Selected Demographic Characteristics – Firm One Participants

Tenure

Education

Selected Demographic Characteristics – Firm Two Participants

Tenure

Education

Summary of Findings

Summary of Findings (Continued)

Summary of Findings (Continued)

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS