Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Performance: Empirical Evidence of An Inverted U Relationship
Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Performance: Empirical Evidence of An Inverted U Relationship
Research Note
Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Performance:
Empirical Evidence of an InvertedU Relationship
Vincent Onyemah
The traditional view of the relationship between role stressors (role ambiguity and role conflict) and performance is
contrasted with a perspective that has received relatively little attention. Some sales force scholars have suggested that the
relationship between role stressors and job outcomes might mirror the invertedU relationship between actual felt stress
and performance (e.g., YerkesDodsons law, activation theory). The empirical evidence they reported is inconclusive: the
hypothesis with respect to performance is not supported. Nevertheless, many sales force management textbooks maintain
that an invertedU relationship exists. Based on a survey of 1,290 salespeople, the present research demonstrates that an
invertedU relationship, similar to that posited by YerkesDodsons law, is indeed plausible. Furthermore, this relationship
appears to be moderated by organizational tenure and proactive tendencies.
Vincent Onyemah (Ph.D., INSEAD), Assistant Professor of Marketing, School of Management, Boston University, vonyemah@
bu.edu.
The author thanks the salespeople and companies who contributed
the data for this study. The fieldwork was financed and technically
supported by INSEAD and the Richard DeVos Direct Selling Education Foundation (DSEF). The author also thanks Daniel Korschun,
Erin Anderson, Heather Poland, Hubert Gatignon, Jagdip Singh,
Robert Dahlstrom, and William Perreault, Jr. for their useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Work-related role stressors (role ambiguity and role conflict)
are among the most widely researched constructs in organizational behavior (Boles and Babin 1994; Sullivan and Bhagat
1992) and sales force management (Leigh, Pullins, and Comer
2001). Much of the role stressor literature draws on Kahn et
al.s (1964) role-episode model.
Role stressors are often conceptualized as consisting of
two related but distinct constructsrole ambiguity and role
conflict (Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman 1970). In the sales force
literature, some authors (e.g., Singh 1998) have also included
a third constructrole overload. It is, however, not studied as
frequently as the first two (Brown and Peterson 1993). In this
paper, the focus is on perceived role ambiguity and perceived
role conflict. Role ambiguity is the perception that one lacks
information necessary to perform a job or task, leading the
perceiver to feel helpless. It is a salespersons uncertainty about
the expectations of different members in his or her role set
(e.g., boss, customers). Role conflict is a feeling of being torn
in multiple directions, unable to find a way to make every role
partner satisfied. It occurs when, for example, a salesperson
believes that the expectations and demands of his or her boss
and customer are incompatible.
Consequences of Role Stressors on Performance
The impact of role ambiguity and role conflict on job performance is supported conceptually by the role-episode model
(Kahn et al. 1964). Kahn et al. posit that (1)boundary spanners (e.g., salespeople) interact with different role senders
(e.g., fellow workers, boss) in many episodes (e.g., evaluation
and feedback, visits to customers) to obtain information, sales
orders, assistance, and direction; (2)role senders (e.g., boss,
customers) expectations and demands result in stressors when
the boundary spanner believes ambiguity exists (e.g., about
expectations) or conflict exists (e.g., among demands); (3)perceived role stressors are related to a persons psychological, dispositional, and sociological characteristics; and (4)prolonged
exposure to role stressors is likely to overwhelm the persons
resources and thereby undermine his or her job outcomes (e.g.,
job performance, satisfaction, commitment).
The foregoing sequence is consistent with an alternative mechanism proposed by Cohen (1980). According to
this mechanism, as employees perceive greater role stressor,
they will dedicate greater cognitive resources to seeking role
clarification and reconciling conflicting demands. Because
cognitive resources are limited, resources allocated to clarifying
responsibilities and reconciling demands cannot be dedicated
to attaining performance objectives (Cohen 1980).
Much empirical research has investigated the influence
of different role stressors on salesperson performance, com-
people (Schaubroeck and Ganster 1993; Scott 1966). Furthermore, it overwhelms a persons reactive and coping capacities
(Schaubroeck and Ganster 1993; Scott 1966; Singh 1998).
If these mechanisms hold, job performance should suffer
(Scott 1966). In summary, moderate levels of role ambiguity
(or conflict) should be associated with superior performance
and extreme levels of role ambiguity (or conflict) should be
associated with inferior performance.
Hypothesis 1: There is an invertedU relationship between
role ambiguity and performance.
Hypothesis 2: There is an invertedU relationship between
role conflict and performance.
Moderating Influence of Individual Characteristics
This paper investigates the moderating influence of three factors: organizational tenure, tendency to confront situations
head-on, and tendency to transform situations into opportunities. The choice of these variables is guided by (1)relevance
to the mechanism underlying the hypothesized invertedU
relationship, (2)suggestion in the role stressor literature regarding potential moderators, and (3)novelty.
The role stressor literature suggests that organizational
tenure moderates the relationship between role stressors and
job performance (e.g., Jackson and Schuler 1985; Walker,
Churchill, and Ford 1975, 1977). Over time, employees
build psychological defenses. These defenses help employees
to cope with challenges and hardships (e.g., high levels of
role stressor). Thus, compared to new hires, long-tenured
salespeople are more likely to withstand high levels of role
stressor. Furthermore, long-tenured salespeople know better
what is expected of them, have longer exposure to company
practices, and possess a richer repertoire of knowledge and
survival tactics (e.g., Leong, Busch, and Roedder-John 1989).
Consequently, long-tenured salespeople should possess a psychological buffer that reduces their sensitivity to role stressors.
The slopes of the invertedU should therefore be less steep.
In addition, it is expected that long-tenured salespeople, on
average, outperform new hires: senior salespeople tend to possess better abilities to obtain results (e.g., Leong, Busch, and
Roedder-John 1989) in most circumstances. A salespersons
prolonged exposure to his or her companys environment
might give him or her some advantages over new hires. Over
time, incumbents build expertise, which, in turn, facilitates
the achievement of superior performance. Therefore, with
respect to the influence of role ambiguity:
Hypothesis 3: For long-tenured salespeople, the apex of the
invertedU (a)is approached with gentler slopes, (b)occurs
at a higher level of role ambiguity, and (c)occurs at a higher
level of performance.
PERFi = b0 + b1,iRSi + ui
(1)
(2)
(3)
1X
= X
1PE RF ,
X
(4)
(5)
(6)
Number of
Company
Country
Observations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Hungary
United States
United States
Spain
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
United States
Spain
Spain
Spain
Italy
Nigeria
Within-Company
Response Rate
(percent)
Type of
Performance Data
92
68
56
50
100
100
98
73
68
54
72
77
60
100
Sales
Sales
Percentage of quota achieved
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Wastes
Sales
Percentage of quota achieved
Percentage of quota achieved
Percentage of quota achieved
103
94
68
82
36
22
49
22
391
167
73
24
113
46
not solely due to wording discrepancies. So the first-order factor model was retained for use in subsequent analyses.
Assessing Configural Invariance Across Countries
Even though there is no cultural dimension to our model and
hypotheses, the multinational nature of our data requires that
we assess configural invariance across the countries (Horn
1991). Therefore, we conducted a multicountry confirmatory
factor analysis using the method proposed by Steenkamp and
Baumgartner (1998). The existence of similar factor loading
patterns across multiple groups is the minimum requirement
for measurement invariance (Horn, McArdle, and Mason
1983; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). We obtained fit
statistics that are within acceptable ranges: RMSEA= 0.062,
CI90%: 0.058 to 0.065, CFI= 0.86, consistent Akaike information criterion (CAIC) = 3,744 (Steenkamp and Baumgartner
1998). These statistics suggest that the patterns of factor
loadings are similar across the countries. Table 2 contains a
summary of descriptive statistics and correlations.
Estimation of Parameters, Tests, and Results
Ten regressions were conducted. In the first run, performance
was regressed against role stressor using a linear model. In the
second run, an invertedU model was estimated. The next
six runs investigate the moderating influence of organizational tenure, tendency to confront situations head-on, and
tendency to transform situations into opportunities. The
penultimate and last regressions provide parameter estimates
for Equations (5) and (6), respectively. Two covariatesage
and genderwere included in every model. A summary of
Salesperson performance
Role ambiguity
Role conflict
Organizational tenure
Tendency to confront
situations head-on
Tendency to transform
situations into opportunities
8.65
6.00
7.00
40.0
7.00
7.00
3.21
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.25
1.86
5.00
5.30
0.00
2.45
3.74
7.00
0.80
0.87
1.00
0.92
1.04
7.30
Standard
Deviation
Notes: Number of observations: 1,290. The boldface correlations are not significant at p < 0.01.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
0.05
0.06
1.00
0.05
0.04
0.19
0.26
0.14
1.00
0.25
0.00
Table 2
Variable Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Correlations
3
0.05
0.18
1.00
0.03
0.19
0.19
1.00
0.44
1.00
1.00
Statement of Hypothesis
H1:
H2:
H3a:
H3b:
H3c:
H4a:
H4b:
H4c:
H5a:
H5b:
H5c:
H6a:
H6b:
H6c:
H7a:
H7b:
H7c:
H8a:
H8b:
H8c:
Supported
(Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Mixed
No
Mixed
Yes
No
Mixed
Role Conflict
Consistent with H2, there is an invertedU influence of role
conflict on salesperson performance (Table 5, column 2:
roleconflict= 0.50, p< 0.01; squareofroleconflict= 0.062, p< 0.01;
R2= 7.0 percent).
In support of H4a, the slope of the invertedU for longtenured salespeople (= 0.38) is gentler than that for shorttenured salespeople (= 0.81); p< 0.01 (see also Figure 4).
H4b is also supported: the apex of the curve for long-tenured
salespeople occurs at a higher level of role conflict (Figure 4:
5.10 versus 4.02; p< 0.01). In support of H4c, long-tenured
0.723***
0.044***
0.723***
0.043***
0.75***
(2.83)
0.40**
(2.26)
0.07**
(2.17)
0.01*
(1.91)
0.62
(0.62)
6.5
0.539***
0.049***
0.74**
(2.30)
0.51**
(2.37)
0.09**
(2.23)
0.003
(0.57)
0.77
(0.84)
6.8
3a
0.778***
0.040***
0.00
(0.01)
0.28
(1.04)
0.05
(1.07)
0.00
(0.25)
0.37
(0.36)
0.05
3b
0.789***
0.045***
0.92**
(2.38)
0.41*
(1.70)
0.08*
(1.59)
0.01**
(2.58)
0.60
(0.57)
6.2
4a
0.743**
0.031**
0.61*
(1.79)
0.34*
(1.60)
0.06*
(1.55)
0.01
(0.75)
0.50
(0.45)
2.7
4b
0.777***
0.048***
1.25***
(3.00)
0.73***
(2.67)
0.13***
(2.57)
0.01*
(1.79)
0.76
(0.80)
8.6
5a
0.698*
0.024*
0.20
(0.54)
0.06
(0.25)
0.01
(0.27)
0.003
(0.51)
0.43
(0.70)
0.04
5b
0.431***
0.079***
0.51**
(2.43)
0.27*
(1.71)
0.039
(1.25)
0.01*
(1.80)
0.50
(0.43)
3.0
0.01*
(1.87)
0.45
(0.40)
1.0
0.010
(0.049)
0.003
(0.067)
Notes: (1) Replication of the most common model (i.e., linear relationship between role ambiguity and performance). (2) Parabolic (inverted-U) specification using a varying parameter approach. (3a) Based on data for salespeople with less than 4 years of tenure. (3b) Based on data for salespeople with more than 4 years of tenure. (4a) Based on data for salespeople with less than
5.50 on the confronter scale. (4b) Based on data for salespeople with more than 5.50 on the confronter scale. (5a) Based on data for salespeople with less than 5.29 on the transformer scale. (5b)
Based on data for salespeople with more than 5.29 on the transformer scale. (6) Based on mean-centered data (e.g., Singh 1998). (7) Based on sine-transformed data (e.g., Bhuian, Menguc, and
Borsboom 2005; Nygaard and Dahlstrom 2002). t-test: two-tailed; *** significant at p < 0.01; ** significant at p < 0.05; * significant at p < 0.10
Constant
Square of role ambiguity
Constant
0.31*
(1.83)
Role ambiguity
0.03
(0.67)
Square of role ambiguity
Age
0.01*
(1.91)
Gender
0.66
(0.66)
Fit (R-square) (percent)
1.6
Table 4
Results of Regression (Role Ambiguity)
0.728***
0.016***
0.707***
0.017***
1.05***
(3.00)
0.50***
(3.12)
0.062***
(2.85)
0.01*
(1.90)
0.69
(0.62)
7.0
0.815
0.007
1.81***
(3.45)
0.81***
(3.75)
0.111***
(3.83)
0.01*
(1.90)
0.71
(0.84)
8.0
3a
0.656***
0.027***
0.85*
(1.75)
0.38*
(1.76)
0.043
(1.41)
0.00
(0.40)
0.47
(0.45)
2.6
3b
0.490***
0.041***
1.40***
(3.77)
0.62***
(3.00)
0.072***
(2.40)
0.01**
(2.80)
0.66
(0.59)
9.0
4a
0.740
0.004
0.65*
(1.65)
0.31*
(1.59)
0.043*
(1.65)
0.01*
(1.75)
0.60
(0.40)
4.5
4b
0.572***
0.037***
1.67***
(3.64)
0.77***
(3.33)
0.093***
(2.92)
0.01**
(2.79)
0.76
(0.80)
9.0
5a
0.792
0.004
0.35
(0.65)
0.147
(0.72)
0.019
(0.70)
0.00
(0.50)
0.51
(0.59)
0.1
5b
1.025
0.047
0.07
(1.47)
0.03
(1.45)
0.057***
(2.82)
0.01*
(1.80)
0.50
(0.35)
3.0
0.01*
(1.85)
0.40
(0.45)
2.0
0.07
(0.04)
0.14**
(2.45)
Notes: (1) Replication of the most common model (i.e., linear relationship between role conflict and performance). (2) Parabolic (inverted-U) specification using a varying parameter approach.
(3a)Based on data for salespeople with less than 4 years of tenure. (3b) Based on data for salespeople with more than 4 years of tenure. (4a) Based on data for salespeople with less than 5.50 on
the confronter scale. (4b) Based on data for salespeople with more than 5.50 on the confronter scale. (5a) Based on data for salespeople with less than 5.29 on the transformer scale. (5b)Based
on data for salespeople with more than 5.29 on the transformer scale. (6) Based on mean-centered data (e.g., Singh 1998). (7) Based on sine-transformed data (e.g., Bhuian, Menguc, and Borsboom 2005; Nygaard and Dahlstrom 2002). t-test: two-tailed; *** significant at p < 0.01; ** significant at p < 0.05; * significant at p < 0.10.
Constant
Square of role conflict
Constant
0.31*
(1.78)
Role conflict
0.05*
(1.75)
Square of role conflict
Age
0.01*
(1.89)
Gender
0.60
(0.56)
Fit (R-square) (percent)
2.8
Table 5
Results of Regression (Role Conflict)
Figure 1
Plot of Performance Against Role Ambiguity
(Organizational Tenure as a Moderator)
Figure 2
Plot of Performance Against Role Ambiguity
(Tendency to Confront Situations Head On
as a Moderator)
Figure 3
Plot of Performance Against Role Ambiguity
(Tendency to Transform Situations into Opportunities
as a Moderator)
Figure 4
Plot of Performance Against Role Conflict
(Organizational Tenure as a Moderator)
Figure 5
Plot of Performance Against Role Conflict
(Tendency to Confront Situations Head On
as a Moderator)
Figure 6
Plot of Performance Against Role Conflict
(Tendency to Transform Situations into Opportunities
as a Moderator)
salespeople, on average, outperform their short-tenured counterparts even at higher levels of role conflict (Figure 4: the test
of difference of means across the two groups is significant at p<
0.01). Consistent with H6a, the slope of the curve is gentler
for salespeople with high tendency to confront situations
head on (= 0.31 versus = 0.62; p< .05) (Table 5). H6b
and H6c are not supported (Figure 5).
H8a is supported: the slope of the curve for salespeople
with high tendency to transform situations into opportunities (= 0.15) is gentler than that for salespeople with low
tendency to transform situations into opportunities (=
0.77); p< 0.01 (Table 5). H8b is not supported. With respect
to H8c: at low and high levels of role conflict, salespeople with
high tendency to transform situations into opportunities,
on average, outperform their counterparts with low tendency
to transform situations into opportunities (Figure 6: the test
of difference of means is significant at p< 0.01). Conversely,
at moderate levels of role conflict, salespeople with low tendency to transform situations into opportunities, on average,
achieve better performance (Figure 6) than salespeople with
high tendency to transform situations into opportunities.
The traditional linear model yielded a positive relationship between role conflict and performance (Table 5, column
1: roleconflict= 0.05, p< 0.10; R2= 2.8 percent). Results of
regression analysis based on mean-centered data partially
support a curvilinear influence of role conflict on salesperson performance (Table 5, column 6: roleconflict= 0.03, p>
0.10; squareofroleconflict= 0.057, p< 0.01; R2= 3.0 percent).
Finally, the GAS model for role conflict is not supported
(sineofroleconflict= 0.14, p< 0.05; R2= 2.0 percent). Actually,
this result is opposite to that predicted by GAS theory.
DISCUSSION
This paper provides empirical evidence of an invertedU influence of role stressor (role ambiguity and role conflict) on
salesperson performance. Contrary to the dominant belief that
role ambiguity and role conflict are always harmful, our findings show that a moderate level of role stressor can be beneficial
to salespeople. To my knowledge, this is the first time that a
functional aspect (with respect to salesperson performance)
of role stressor is empirically demonstrated. From a research
perspective, role stressorperformance models that specify only
linear relationships may be too simple to capture the complex
reality of how role stressors influence salesperson performance.
Future research on role stressors may gain predictive power
and richer insight if allowance is made for nonlinear (e.g.,
parabolic) influences.
Estimation of an alternative nonlinear model (i.e., triphasic
equation) yielded results that are consistent with the findings
reported by Nygaard and Dahlstrom (2002). However, these
References
Armstrong, Scott J., and Terry S. Overton (1977), Estimating
Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys, Journal of Marketing
Research, 14 (August), 396402.
Bateman, Thomas S., and Michael J. Crant (1993), The Proactive Component of Organizational Behavior: Measure
and Correlates, Journal of Organization Behavior, 14 (2),
103118.
Behrman, Douglas N., and William D. Perreault, Jr. (1984), A
Role Stress Model of the Performance and Satisfaction of
Industrial Salespersons, Journal of Marketing, 48, 4 (Fall),
921.
Benson, Herbert (2005), Are You Working Too Hard? Harvard
Business Review, 83, 11 (November), 5358.
Bhuian, Shahid, N., Bulent Menguc, and Rene Borsboom
(2005), Stressors and Job Outcomes in Sales: A Triphasic
Model Versus a Linear-Quadratic-Interactive Model,
Journal of Business Research, 58 (2), 141150.
Boles, James S., and Barry J. Babin (1994), Role Stress Revisited:
One or Two Constructs? Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 2 (3), 5769.
Brown, Steven P., and Robert A. Peterson (1993), Antecedents
and Consequences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction: MetaAnalysis and Assessment of Causal Effects, Journal of
Marketing Research, 30 (February), 6377.
Cha, Ariana E. (2005), Employers Relying on Personality Tests
to Screen Applicants, Washington Post (March 28), A01
(available at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A4010-2005Mar26.html washingtonpost.com).
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr., Neil M. Ford, Steven W. Hartley, and
Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1985), The Determinants of Salesperson Performance: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Marketing
Research, 22 (May), 103118.
Cohen, Sheldon (1980), Aftereffects of Stress on Human Performance and Social Behavior: A Review of Research and
Theory, Psychological Bulletin, 88 (1), 82108.
Cooke, Robert A., and Denise M. Rousseau (1984), Stress and
Strain from Family Roles and Work Role Expectations,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (2), 252260.
Crant, Michael J. (1995), The Proactive Personality Scale and
Objective Job Performance Among Real Estate Agents,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (4), 532537.
Cron, William L., and John W. Slocum (1986), The Influence
of Career Stages on Salespeoples Job Attitudes, Work Per-
Appendix
Scale Items
Role Ambiguity (based on Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman 1970) (anchor: 1 completely disagree to 7 completely agree)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Role Conflict (based on Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman 1970) (anchor: 1 completely disagree to 7 completely agree)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tendency to Confront Situations Head-On (based on Bateman and Crant 1993; Crant 1995) (anchor: 1 completely
disagree to 7 completely agree)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Tendency to Transform Situations into Opportunities (based on Bateman and Crant 1993; Crant 1995) (anchor: 1
completely disagree to 7 completely agree)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Organizational Tenure
Total number of years in this company.
(R) reversed to reflect role ambiguity instead of role clarity.