x: .5: ..S .K _ i «a? ,I: a .r 17: aria, . 1 SE33. 2, yr 5 .21.. . QT". ..,...zm my. .«I, I... f . $1.537... . . 51,: , \. .~. . . \_.l.:\l. Date LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled ROLE CONFLICT COPIEIG STRATEGIES: AN EXPLORnTORY STUDY presented by Deidre L. Popovich has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. degree in Communication l/(fl/w-v' W‘ZLK Major professor / 2 - ll —- 00 0-7639 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date dUe. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE n AAA DATE DUE DATE DUE r o UU 2 11/00 chlRC/DatoDuo.p65—p.14 ROLE CONFLICT COPING STRATEGIES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY By Deidre L. Popovich A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Communication 2000 ‘9 ABSTRACT ROLE CONFLICT COPING STRATEGIES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY By Deidre L. Popovich This study examined role conflict that employees encountered most frequently in the workplace and whether or not they shared similar role conflict experiences with one another. Specifically, this study examined five distinct types of role conflict, the contributing circumstances and situations of those types of role conflict, and the strategies used to cope with a particular type of role conflict. Although previous research has addressed coping strategies for life stress in general and the antecedents and consequences of role conflict, this particular study offers a unique contribution in examining how employees cope with role conflict as one type of work-related stress. Results confirmed the multidimensional nature and frequent occurrence of role conflict experiences in the workplace. Work group context influences the types of coping strategies used by employees. Employees reported certain coping strategies as more or less effective for each particular type of role conflict. Copyright by Deidre Lyn Popovich 2000 To my mother and late father: Thank you for raising me with a strong value for education and giving me the work ethic to succeed, always. I love you. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper would not have been possible, of course, without the enduring assistance and encouragement of Vernon Miller, who I am indebted to in so many ways. Thank you for your time, energy, guidance, support, and insight. I appreciate you providing structure for this project and facilitating my applied learning process. Thank you especially for being there through the many turning points of this research project, always taking the time to convince me that I am capable, intelligent and successful. You have earned my deepest respect and appreciation. You, are truly a mentor to me. I also wish to express my deep appreciation to Mike Glass. I truly admire your willingness and ability to facilitate the research process. I especially value your concern for my success and your effort in helping me try to achieve my goals. Your kind actions and words are an inspiration to me — you’ve set a marvelous example. Your belief in this project has helped me considerably. I will not forget your caring and concern. Pam, thank you so very much for your guidance and help in this project. Thanks especially for being an incredibly upbeat and supportive professor through your leadership and understanding. Gwen, I truly appreciate your time and effort. Thank you for sharing some of your vast statistical knowledge with me and making it a relatively painless process. Your ability to organize and locate your files is incredible. I hope to follow your example. Thanks so much for your help and guidance. This has been a very rewarding experience, thanks to all of you. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. vii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 5 Roles and Role Conflict ................................................................................... 5 Research on Role Conflict ............................................................................... 9 Coping with Role Conflict ............................................................................... 14 Endurance ............................................................................................ 17 Change ................................................................................................ 19 CHAPTER 2 METHOD ............................................................................................................ 22 Participants .................................................................................................... 22 Measures ....................................................................................................... 22 Role Conflict ......................................................................................... 22 Role Coping Survey Scales ................................................................. 25 Strategy Effectiveness ......................................................................... 32 Demographic lnforrnation ..................................................................... 33 Analysis ......................................................................................................... 33 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 34 Type of Role Conflict ...................................................................................... 34 Frequency ............................................................................................ 36 Nature .................................................................................................. 38 Coping Strategies .......................................................................................... 41 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 54 Nature of Role Conflict ................................................................................... 55 Bargaining and Non-bargaining Differences .................................................. 57 Effective Coping Strategies ............................................................................ 59 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 60 Future Research ............................................................................................ 61 ENDNOTES ........................................................................................................ 63 APPENDIX .......................................................................................................... 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 67 vi LIST OF TABLES 1. Correlates of Role Conflict ............................................................................. 12 2. Types of Coping Strategies Reported by Subordinates ................................ 16 3. Factor Loadings and Reliability for Scales .................................................... 27 4. Frequency of Reported Role Conflict Experiences ....................................... 35 5. Length of Role Conflict Situation Prior to Resolution .................................... 37 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Coping Strategies ........... 43 7. Report of Significant Differences in Coping Strategy Means ........................ 44 8. Coping Means Based on Type of Role Conflict ............................................ 45 9. Differences in Bargaining/Non-Bargaining Coping Strategy Means .............. 47 10. Frequency of Coping Strategies Reported as Most Helpful in Reducing Stress and Resolving Conflict ....................................................... 49 11. Coping Strategies Reported as Most Helpful in Reducing Stress ............... 52 12. Coping Strategies Reported as Most Helpful in Resolving Conflict ............. 53 vii INTRODUCTION Role conflict is typically considered to be a widespread and at times serious problem at work (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978) and occurs when employees are simultaneously under “two or more role expectations such that compliance with one would make compliance with the other more difficult” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 204). The extensive research of role conflict’s effect on employees’ job performance, stress, and satisfaction with work reflects concern over its negative impact (e.g., llgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964; Peterson et al., 1995). For example, meta-analyses indicate that role conflict is associated with employee job dissatisfaction, job-related tension, lack of commitment and involvement, propensity to leave the organization, fatigue, stress, and anxiety (Fisher & Gittleson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Employee experiences of role conflict are quite diverse, ranging from role proscriptions that are incompatible with time constraints, system operations, and/or values to role demands that are incompatible with directives from another supervisor or allegiances to family and work (Kahn et al., 1964; Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981). While social support, increased communication frequency, communication openness, and work facilitation are known to lessen the negative impact of role conflict on employees (Fisher & Gittleson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985), our understanding to date of role conflict and employees coping responses is limited in at least four ways. First, current conceptualizations tend to measure role conflict as a unidimensional construct (e.g., Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970) when its theoretical underpinnings are multidimensional (Kahn et al., 1964). For instance, Newton and Keenan’s (1987) investigation of different role conflict components suggests that each require unique coping strategies. In this way, the use of popular measurements that aggregate separate components of role conflict may limit our understanding of role stresses and much called for coping responses (Van Sell et al., 1981). Second, recent research tends to focus on supervisory or workgroup climate to the exclusion of individual coping behaviors. Research on role theory traditionally focuses on the nature of role stress along with the antecedents and consequences as opposed to how employees adapt to these conflicts (see Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985 for reviews). In contrast, focusing on adaptation may provide valuable insights into employee creativity as well as conflict management behaviors (Beehr & Gupta, 1978; Simmons, 1968) such as analyzing the situation and changing work priorities (Burke & Belcourt, 1974) and role negotiation (Ashford & Black, 1996). A focus on adaptation also broadens generally used conceptions of employee role coping behaviors that overlook the well-developed stress coping literature (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; McCrae, 1984; Stone, Greenhaus, Kennedy-Moore, & Newman, 1991). Third, role conflict episodes are traditionally studied in isolation of the employee’s entire role set (i.e., supervisors, coworkers, and subordinates integral to the accomplishment of a role). Studies examining role conflict in supervisor- subordinate relationships (e.g. Ashforth & Sacks, 1995; Kirmeyer & Dougherty, 1988) often exclude coworkers as sources or diffusers of role conflict. While coworkers are often identified as a source of support for employees (see Viswesvaran, Sanchez & Fisher, 1999, for a review), the circumstances where they turn to coworkers and how coworkers are helpful in resolving role conflict are unclear. In addition, conflicts with coworkers are generally portrayed as conflict management episodes (e.g. Hodson, 1997; Kohli & Jaworski, 1994), and role-related aspects of the conflict are not reported. In this respect, it would be useful to know if and how employees’ relationships with coworkers contributes to and/or reduces role conflict. Fourth, the linkage between role conflict and employee role negotiation activities as a coping mechanism is largely neglected. With few exceptions (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Miller, Johnson, Hart, & Peterson, 1999), little attention is paid to the communicative strategies by which individuals seek to resolve their role conflicts despite its importance to supervisor-subordinate relationships (Kahn et al., 1964; Peterson et al., 1995; Zurcher, 1983). Role conflict, in particular, may alter employee attitudes (Kahn et al., 1964) and their approach to enacting their roles (Ashford & Black, 1996; Hall, 1972). Thus, considering role negotiation acts in investigations of role coping strategies may provide a greater understanding of employee reactions to role dilemmas. In an attempt to respond to these limitations, this study seeks to examine the nature of employee role conflict and the role coping strategies. In particular, this investigation is interested in the relationship of role conflict to supervisor and coworker behavior in instigating or relieving conflicting role expectations. The initial section of this paper examines depictions of role conflict, emphasizing the shaping of role expectations and the multidimensional aspects of role conflict. Subsequent sections examine the importance of coping strategies in the workplace and how different types of role conflict may affect the use of particular coping strategies. Following a description of the methodology to examine the hypothesized relationships, the results of data’ analyses and a discussion of those results are presented. Chapter 1 LITERATURE REVIEW Roles and Role CJonflict Roles are the “summation of requirements with which the system confronts the individual member” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 186). While jobs are objective tasks performed with physical characteristics created by its beneficiaries, roles are socially created by individuals and their role sets (llgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Zurcher, 1983). Roles are learned, have content and stylistic dimensions, possess formal and informal duties, rights, and privileges (Jablin, 1987). As Jablin (1987) noted, roles can be understood by scrutinizing the expectations communicated to the individual by role set members. Role expectations convey the job tasks to be performed, preferred manner of their performance, and the relation of job tasks to others’ actions and resources. Role-taking and role-making are the primary means by which roles are conveyed, internalized, and/or changed. In role-taking, role set members’ directives, instructions, and even casual comments “influence the focal person in the direction of greater conformity with [their] expectations,” (Kahn et al., 1964, p. 27). However, unclear statements, not fully articulated expectations, and “noise” in the message channel can result in inaccurate receiver interpretations (Katz 8 Kahn, 1978). Employees’ willingness and readiness to enact role components also affects their ability to enact roles in the prescribed manner (Goffman, 1961; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Role-making involves employees’ purposeful role modification according to their own design. In this way, they attempt to individualize the role to meet their abilities, needs, and desires (Schein, 1968). Green (1976) posited that employees bring shared and unique expectations to the interpretation of messages regarding the sent role. Misunderstandings and disagreements between the supervisor (and other role set members) and the focal employee over the nature and manner of performing the role result from the lack of co- orientation over role expectations (Graen 8. Scandura, 1987). Employees experience role ambiguity when the duties, parameters, and/or priorities of the role are unclear (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Rizzo et al., 1970). In contrast, they experience role conflict when there are inconsistencies between the expectations of parties or between aspects of a single role so that the completion of one task interferes with or negates the completion of another (Kahn et al., 1964). Stressful work events and an imposed reliance on hierarchical sources can foster role conflicts by making salient otherwise hidden discrepancies in priorities or expectations (Peterson et al., 1995). At times, role senders create role conflict situations by communicating incompatible or difficult- to-prioritize requirements. Conceptualizations of role conflict depict a complex, multidimensional construct (Kahn et al., 1964; Rizzo et al., 1970). In one of the most definitive accounts of role conflict, Kahn et al. (1964) identify five different types of role conflict: intra-sender, inter-sender, inter-role, person-role, and role overload. Intra-sender Conflict. Incompatible expectations from a single role sender or source result in intra-sender conflict. Kahn et al. (1964) stated that supervisors create incongruous assignments when they request subordinates acquire some critical material unavailable through normal channels yet simultaneously prohibit the violation of normal channels. Supervisors are not the only source of difficult-to-accomplish assignments. lntra-sender conflict can also emerge from organizational policies, time frames, and/or standards of evaluation that are at odds with assigned tasks (Katz & Kahn, 1978). For example, the need to break a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment constitutes intra-sender conflict (Rizzo et al., 1970). Mgr-senger Conflict. Inter-sender conflict occurs when the expectations from one or more role senders are incompatible with the expectations of one or more other senders in the same role set. Employees experiencing inter-sender conflict feel as though they are “...caught in the middle between two sets of people who want different things from them” (Kahn et al., 1964, p. 56). For example, an executive reporting to both an administrative supervisor and a functional supervisor may face conflicting expectations as the former may emphasize availability of materials over cost effectiveness. lnter-rolefiConflict. Inter-role conflict exists when the ability to perform one role competes against performing another role. In this case, employees are forced to select which role enactment to prioritize because they are the target of influence attempts from different organizations or subsystems. For instance, boundary spanners who coordinate responsibilities across departments or teams experience higher levels of inter-role conflict (Miles, 1976; Whetten, 1978). Corporate norms to work beyond conventional office hours also may be at odds with family members’ expectations of sharing activities. A number of scholars (e.g. Greenhaus 8 Beutell, 1985; Sekaran, 1986; Wiersma 8 van den Berg, 1991) termed this as work-family conflict. Person-Role Conflict. The fourth form of role conflict occurs when an incompatibility emerges between employees’ needs, aspirations, values, or ethics and their assigned duties. Conflict of this nature evokes a “feeling that you have to do things on the job that are against your better judgement” (Kahn et al., 1964, p. 59). Employees may believe that advertising untested claims about a product is unethical, but may be required to do so by their employer. Sales representatives may receive information from the company that they are reluctant to share with their clients, or vice versa. In other cases, employees recognize that what they are doing at work does not coincide with their self-concept of what they feel they “should” be doing. Role Overload. At times, employees feel incapable of complying with all role requirements in a limited time frame. Working under this type of pressure for extended periods of time creates role overload and the perception that they have more work than they can “possibly finish during an ordinary work day” (Kahn et al., 1964, p. 59). Consistently taking work home of working overtime in order to meet deadlines and time pressures is characteristic of those experiencing role overload. One of the most frequently used depictions of role conflict is Rizzo et al.’s (1970) reconceptualization of Kahn et al. (1964). Role conflict is defined in terms of the “dimensions of congruency-incongruency or compatibility-incompatibility in the requirements of the role, where congruency or compatibility is judged relative to a set of standards or conditions which impinge upon role performance” (Rizzo et al., 1970, p. 155). Accordingly, Rizzo et al. (1970) appropriated Kahn et al.’s (1964) role conflict typology in the construction of an eight-item questionnaire instrument. For instance, receiving conflicting rules and procedures to accomplish a task reflects intra-sender conflict. Receiving incompatible requests from two or more members represents inter-sender conflict. Having to complete assignments acceptable to one member but not the other measures inter-role conflict. Working on “unnecessary” tasks or tasks which “should be done differently” indicates person-role conflict. Receiving insufficient resources and/or manpower approximates role overload. Recent scale development by Johnson et al. (1998) extended Rizzo et al.’s (1970) scale by including additional items in the areas of intra-sender, inter-sender, and person-role conflict. Despite its multi- dimensional nature, role conflict is typically represented as a unidimensional construct. Research on Role Conflict Meta-analyses of studies primarily using Rizzo et al.’s (1970) measure provide a fairly consistent picture of organizational, job, and individual antecedents to role conflict. Table 1, a review of meta-analytic results from Fisher and Gittelson (1983) and Jackson and Schuler (1985), indicates the amount of task and skill variety in a position is positively related to role conflict. However, employees’ reports of receiving feedback from others is negatively related to role conflict, along with receiving feedback from the task itself, participating in decision making, clarity in task identity, the leader’s initiating of structure, and the degree of the leader’s consideration. Employee locus of control and education are also predictive of the degree of role conflict experienced. In addition, boundary spanning is positively associated with role conflict. Consistent with warnings of the consequences of role conflict (Kahn et al., 1964; Katz 8 Kahn, 1978; Van Sell et al., 1981), meta-analyses indicate that role conflict reduces general job satisfaction, as well as the satisfaction with work itself, supervision, coworkers, pay and advancement. Role conflict is negatively related to employee commitment and job involvement, but positively related to reports of tension/anxiety at work and their propensity to leave the organization. In short, meta-analyses suggest that structural factors such as the leader’s communication behaviors and job complexity are critical predictors of role conflict and that role conflict has considerable negative consequences on employee affect toward the job and organization. Recent investigations suggest that a greater understanding of role conflict in complex work settings is needed. Counter-role behavior, or behavior contrary to sent-role expectations, may be quite functional when the role has been incorrectly specified (Staw 8 Boettger, 1990). Organizations seeking flexible role orientation may introduce autonomous forms of work (Parker, Wall, 8 Jackson, 1997) and risk increased role conflict. Managers who exert extra effort and 10 explain their decisions are regarded as more effective by their role set and reduce discrepant role expectations (Tsui, et al., 1995). In light of the complexity of the role conflict experience and the myriad ways that individuals may be impacted by role conflict, it is necessary to move beyond the global measurement of role conflict and examine the impact of specific aspects of role conflict. Researchers usually desire efficient survey measures, but Rizzo et al.’s (1970) overall measure of all forms of role conflict may be obscuring important aspects of individual experiences. Furthermore, re- examining the multiple aspects and circumstances of role conflict allows for the subsequent discovery of related role-coping responses. Thus, the following research question asksh Research Question 1: What is the frequency and nature of the types of role conflict reported by employees? 11 Table 1 Correlates of Role Conflict Mean Correlation (r)‘ Correlate Fisher 8 Gitelson (1983) Jackson 8 Schuler (1985) Antecedents Organizational Context Task/skill Variety .1 0 Feedback from Others -.18 Feedback from Task -.13 Task Identity -.25 Leader Initiating Structure -.17 Leader Consideration -.28 Participation in Decision Making -.28 -.24 Boundary Spanning Activities .26 Individual Characteristics Locus of Control .16 Education .10 .14 Consequences Overall Job Satisfaction -.35 -.31 Satisfaction with Work Itself -.31 -.30 Satisfaction with Supervision -.37 -.36 (table continues) 12 Table 1 (cont’d) Mean Correlation (r)a Correlate Fisher 8 Gitelson (1983) Jackson 8 Schuler (1985) Consequences Satisfaction with Coworkers -.31 -.28 Satisfaction with Pay -.20 -.20 Satisfaction with Advancement -.26 -.23 Organizational Commitment -.25 -.24 Job Involvement -.25 -. 16 Tension/Anxiety .28 .28 Propensity to Leave .29 .21 a The mean correlation (r) is reported here as only Jackson and Schuler (1985) report the average weighted correlation corrected for artifacts. Missing scores indicate the comparison was not examined in the meta-analysis. 13 Coping with Role Conflict Employees attempt to cope with role conflict in a variety of ways. A coping strategy is generally defined as a way to master conditions that are perceived as taxing or exceeding adaptive resources (Folkman, 1982; Monat 8 Lazarus, 1977). A number of researchers reported measures of individual emotion- and problem-focused coping behaviors. These behaviors include escape (e.g. avoidance, intellectual denial, mental and behavioral disengagement), support-seeking (e.g. expression of feelings, venting emotions, social support), cognitive reappraisal of self (e.g. self-adaptation, accepting responsibility) or the situation (e.g. positive thinking, positive reinterpretation), and problem-solving responses (eg. rational action, perseverance, self-control, making plans) (Carver et al., 1989; Folkman 8 Lazarus, 1980; Folkman, Lazarus, DunkeI-Schetter, DeLongis, 8 Gruen, 1986). Three important findings from research on emotion- and problem-focused coping behaviors emerge that are pertinent to this study. First, the selection and usefulness of coping behaviors tends to vary according to the nature of the stressor (Carver et al., 1989; Folkman et al., 1986; McCrae, 1984). Second, and of relevance to organizational settings where problems can not be indefinitely put off, stressors viewed as changeable or solvable evoke problem-solving situational reappraisal, and support-seeking responses (Carver et al., 1989; Folkman et al., 1986; McCrae, 1984). Third, given the variability of coping responses according to the type of stressor, Stone et al. (1991) recommended creating a coping typology that is in keeping with the particular problem-category 14 of interest. The following role coping typology represents an attempt to capture employees’ coping responses in work settings. Organizational researchers’ reports of role coping strategies typically emphasize either role endurance or change tactics. For instance, Kahn et al. (1964) reported direct attempts (e.g. compliance, persuading role senders to modify incompatible demands) and avoidance attempts (e.g. defense mechanisms) by employees. House (1974) suggested that organizational members seeking to alter conditions responsible for stress ask those who impose conflicting demands to come to a consensus. In contrast, others attempt to live with the conflicting demands and try not to perceive them as stressful. Hall (1972) identified three broad strategies for coping with work-family conflict: structural role redefinition (altering external, structurally imposed role expectations); personal role redefinition (changing personal attitudes, accepting changes in the role rather than changing others’ expectations); and reactive role behavior (meet all of the role expectations by working harder). In short, through role endurance strategies, employees seek to avoid directly modifying others’ expectations by internally redefining the meaning of a role or perhaps working more efficiently. Role change strategies involve attempts to modify others (eg. supervisor) expectations of the role enactment. Behaviors associated with the role-coping approaches are discussed below (see Table 2). 15 Table 2 Types of Coping Strategies Reported by Subordinates Strategy Definition Endure Role Enactment 1. Avoidance 2. Seek social support 3. Reinterpretation 4. Psychological escape 5. Compliance Change Role Enactment 1. Change priorities 2. Test boundaries 3. Obtain resources 4. Negotiation No direct discussion or behavioral attempt to resolve the situation Avoiding the issue and/or supervisor Attempt to gain emotional support (eg. talk to coworkers about conflict with supervisor) Redefining role demands; internal adjustments Developing self interests outside of work Attempt to complete all requests; working harder and longer Problem-solving behaviors; take action to try to resolve conflict Restructure role enactment, e.g. double efforts on one task while ignoring another Do the job “your way;” disregard supervisory requests Gaining the resources necessary for more efficient role performance Talk to supervisor about role modification; change role expectations and enactment 16 Endurance. Enduring role strategies do not attempt to resolve the cause of the role conflict experience. Enduring involves minimal information exchange. Furthermore, the actor rarely communicates directly with the supervisor about the role conflict. Endurance role coping tactics consist of five strategies. In avoidance tactics, employees recognize that they are suppressing the conflict internally (Hall 1972; Kahn et al., 1964). They functionally withdraw from the situation by reducing the amount and frequency of interaction on the issue. Avoidance involves disengaging from the conflict or source of the conflict (Begley, 1998; Burke 8 Belcourt, 1974; Carver et al., 1989; Folkman et al., 1986; Latack, 1986). There is no attempt to discuss conflict as cognitive or behavioral action may be perceived as unnecessary or harmful. Organizational members may also take a wait-and-see approach, hoping that the difficulty and trouble will fade (Carver et al., 1989). An extreme form of avoidance is quitting the job, and thus exiting the situation entirely (Farrell 8 Rusbult, 1992; Hirschman, 1970). Employees also cope with role conflict by seeking support or emotional aid from others (Carver et al., 1989; Folkman et al., 1986). They provide or may seek information from others in order to solicit their assistance through emotional disclosure or joint problem-solving (Begley, 1998; Burke 8 Belcourt, 1974). Employees often talk to coworkers about work difficulties, including conflicts with supervisors (Sias 8 Cahill, 1998; Sias 8 Jablin, 1995). Social support is considered a form of third party sense-making (Latack, 1986) as others in the role set help predict behavior or formulate appropriate responses. 17 Reinterpretation, or reframing, is a cognitive strategy that involves defense mechanisms or internal re-appraisals of self to cope with the conflict (Hall, 1972; Latack, 1986). In an organizational context, workers at times lower their career aspirations or performance standards. Hall (1972) reports that employed women with young children often severely revised their career goals in light of work-family demands. At other times, employees reclassify the role conflict by symbolically changing the perception of conflict (Begley, 1998) so that they think more positively about the role conflict (e.g. “It’s not so bad;” “The glass is half-full, not half-empty”) In essence, reinterpretation involves the redefining of self (Carver et al., 1989; Folkman et al., 1986) in light of role demands. Employees at times throw themselves into interests outside of work. This form of mental and emotional disengagement (Carver et al., 1989; Folkman et al., 1986) or psychological escape is a form of distancing oneself from the conflict by finding new sources of gratification (Burke 8 Belcourt, 1974). Rather than changing their circumstance, employees cope by focusing their time and energy on gaining rewards from non-employment outcomes. Sport, family, social, and/or religious activities offer a respite from the work issue (Latack, 1986). As Hall (1972) notes, employees also cope with role conflict by “throwing themselves” into their work and attempting to complete all requests. Compliance involves yielding to the supervisor’s requests and working harder and longer to accomplish tasks (Burke 8 Belcourt, 1974). As a submissive strategy, employees comply to the requests without seeking to resolve the 18 source of the role conflict. As such, employees might figure out how to work more efficiently, remain at work into the evening, take work home, or even sacrifice recreational or familial time. In sum, all endurance strategies fundamentally lack attempts to change the situation or role requirements. Employees defer actions that would alter their roles. On balance, avoidance and psychological escape are likely to have fewer long-term benefits and possibly short- and long-term harmful consequences at work. Reinterpreting one’s circumstance, seeking support, and working harder are likely to result in more positive outcomes (Burke 8 Belcourt, 1974; Carver et al., 1989). Further, through endurance strategies, the individual engages primarily in role-taking rather than role-making. Changing role requirements requires the employee to recognize the conflict and take action to modify or individualize role requirements. Change. Role change strategies represent problem-solving behaviors aimed at altering the role and/or the relationship with the supervisor. There are four primary ways that employees acknowledge the role conflict and directly attempt to modify role demands. ln changing priorities, employees seek to restructure role demands and requirements by initially altering the role prior to or without interacting with the supervisor (Begley, 1998; Burke 8 Belcourt, 1974; Hall, 1972; Latack, 1986). Individuals may double their efforts on one task while ignoring others, ask coworkers to assume certain tasks, or take on tasks not prescribed by their supervisor (Miller, Jablin, Casey, Lamphear-Van Horn, 8 Ethington, 1996). 19 Research on stress indicates that active coping by changing the approach to handling a situation is often viewed as a constructive action (Carver et al., 1989; Folkman et al., 1986). As a form of secondary adjustment (Goffman, 1966; Zurcher, 1983), changing priorities typify a proactive and independent approach to role conflict resolution. Employees test boundaries when they decide to ignore supervisory directives to not perform specified tasks or to perform the task in a manner specifically opposed by the supervisor. Individuals reason that a rule or directive is not meaningful until it is enforced (Garfinkel, 1967; Miller 8 Jablin, 1991). Such disregard of authority is usually a covert or subtle change (Roethlisberger 8 Dickson, 1939). Obtaining resources, a third type of change, is accomplished by gaining the resources necessary for more efficient role performance (Kahn et al., 1964). Seeking funds, supplies, materials, and personnel are relatively frequent objectives of employees’ upward influence attempts (Y URI 8 Falbe, 1990). Indeed, some forms of role conflict (i.e. intra-sender) can not be ameliorated without additional resources (Katz 8 Kahn, 1978). Finally, negotiation takes place when the employee discusses role modification with the supervisor. In an explicit acknowledgement of the conflict, employees attempt to change supervisory role expectations and gain approval for alterations in role enactment (Miller et al., 1996; Miller et al., 1999). Talking directly with or confronting an individual is an elemental aspect of coping with stress (Carver et al., 1989; Folkman et al., 1986) as well as conflict resolution 20 (Roloff 8 Jordan, 1992). Miller et al. (1996) theorize that negotiation is the most effective form of role change as supervisory approval for role change is explicitly granted. In sum, through change strategies employees attempt to modify role requirements. Employees who change their priorities or test boundaries engage in comparatively risky behaviors as role changes are not yet or may not be approved upon supervisory discovery, thereby risking reprimand and/or punishment. However, not resolving role conflicts may incur greater costs to the employee. To date, theorists (Jablin, 1987; Schein, 1968) typically framed role- making and subsequent individualization as a function of employee desires or needs. Yet, role-making may also be a by—product of the resolution of role conflict (Miller et al., 1999). At present, while general patterns exist regarding coping strategies with certain stressors (e.g. Carver et al., 1989; Folkman et al., 1986; McCrae, 1984), the pattern of individual responses to specific types of role conflict in organizational settings is unclear. How employees respond to situations requiring role change is a frequent (Graen, 1989; Jablin, 1987; Miller et al., 1996) but currently somewhat speculative endeavor. Consequently, the following research questions are proposed: Research Question 2a: What specific strategies do employees report using to cope with certain types of role conflict? Research Question 2b: What do employees perceive as the most effective strategy for each type of role conflict? 21 Chapter 2 METHOD Participants One hundred employees from a public utility company with 725 members participated in this study representing a response rate of 14%. Data were collected through paper and pencil surveys that were distributed through the company inter-office mail system. Materials included a letter from management identifying the purpose and voluntary nature of the study and a stamped envelope addressed to the researcher. After removing five surveys deemed unusable due to incomplete responses, 95 surveys comprised the data for analyses. Participants could be described as mostly male (71%; 29% female), between 41-50 years of age (51%), and college—educated (88%). Sixty percent (60%) were bargaining unit (unionized) employees, with the remaining forty percent (40%) in non-bargaining units. This sample was fairly representative of the population (40% of employees belong to bargaining units, while 60% are non- bargaining). Twenty-seven percent (27%) of all respondents had been employed between one to ten years with this public utility, with 40% employed between eleven and twenty-one years. Measures Role coflict. Employee role conflict experience was measured in two ways. First, participants were presented a version of Kahn et al.’s (1964) five 22 types of role conflict and asked to identify one type of role conflict that they have experienced recently. The use of recent experiences is common in the coping research (Stone et al., 1991).1 Specifically, participants were asked to read each description of the five types of role conflict (see Appendix A) and circle the one description that best represents a recent problematic experience at. work for them. lntra-sender conflict was described as, “policies and regulations in my job are unclear or incompatible.” Inter-sender conflict was depicted as, “it is not possible for me to please everyone at work at all times because different groups of people expect different things from me.” Inter-role conflict was characterized as, “my job demands interfere with demands from my life outside of work." Person-role conflict was described as, “my values do not seem to match the requirements of my job." Role overload was depicted as, “I am not given enough time to do what is expected from me.” The Flesch reading ease score of the role conflict type measure was 62.0 and the F lesch-Kincaid grade level of readability was 8.2. This was deemed suitable for participants. Second, participants were asked to write a brief description of this problematic experience in an adjacent space on the survey, including in their description information who was involved, what the experience concerned, and how long it took to resolve the situation. Participants’ role conflict experience, reported in response to the open-ended question, was content analyzed for the type of role conflict experience, individuals involved in the role conflict, and the focus or nature of the conflict (e.g. time, allocation, job duties). Following 23 Kerlinger (1964), an initial categorization scheme of types of role conflict was based on Kahn et al. (1964). Two independent coders unfamiliar with the goals of the study coded the individual accounts in accordance with the category scheme with an agreement rate of 86.3% and a Cohen’s Kappa of .94. In places where coders disagreed, the researcher discussed the disparity and arrived at a consensus decision. A second analysis compared participants’ identification of one of the five types of role conflict with their open-ended description of the role conflict experience. This analysis showed a 52% agreement (Cohen’s Kappa = .55). An examination of the discrepancies indicated two reasons for the low agreement. First, 16% of participants identified more two or more types of conflict or indicated that the category scheme did not apply to them. Subsequently, responses which did not fit one of the five types of role conflict were labeled “no conflict experienced” or “multiple” and excluded from further analyses. Second, 9% of participants marked a non-role overload category (e.g., frequently inter-sender conflict) when their open-ended statements reflected role overload. The decision of coders was judged to be more accurate and, thus, was used in all cases as the basis for subsequent analyses. Additionally, participants were asked to respond to three single-item questions immediately following the open—ended response to measure how recently, how common, and how stressful the reported role conflict experience was. Responses to the questions were arrayed from 1 to 5, with the higher number indicating most common (extremely common to extremely rare), and 24 very stressful (extremely stressful to not at all stressful) experiences, respectively. Following Folkman et al. (1986), participants were also asked to indicate the outcome of their reported experience by circling one of the following responses: “unresolved and worse,” “not changed,” “resolved but not to my satisfaction,” “unresolved but improved,” or “resolved to my satisfaction.” Role coping survey scales. With the particular problematic experience in mind that they just identified, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they used each role coping strategy item from ten Likert-type scales: avoidance, social support - instrumental, social support - emotional, reinterpretation, psychological escape, compliance, change priorities, test boundaries, obtain resources, and role negotiation. Scale items were arrayed from 1 = “to a very little extent” to 5 = “to a very great extent.” In keeping with Stone et al. (1991) and Begley (1998) and as no current multidimensional scale was deemed appropriate to assess employee role conflict coping responses, scales were selected from different studies based on their appropriateness to this study. Confimiatory factor analyses supported the unidimensionality of eight of the nine scales (Hunter, 1980; Hunter 8 Gerbing, 1982). Analyses indicated that, following the deletion of unsound items, the instruments’ psychometric properties were valid (i.e., internally consistent with hypothesized factor structures intact and distinct from other factors). However, results measured by Carver et al.’s (1989) four-item instrument assessing positive reinterpretation and growth, and changing priorities, measured by Folkman et al.’s (1986) five-item planful 25 problem solving instrument, constituted one factor. Thus, the Changing Priorities and Reinterpretation subscales were combined based on the high correlation of items to form the renamed "Prioritize” subscale. Factor loadings of scale items and scale reliabilities are presented in Table 3. Avoidance was measured using Tsui, Asford, St. Clair and Xin’s (1995) avoidance subscale that assesses dealing with or thinking about a problem. A chi-square test of the sum of squared errors was non-significant (fi(6) = 0.87, p> .05). Both Folkman et al. (1986) and Carver et al. (1989) identified that social support has both instrumental and emotional components. Instrumental social support was measured using Carver et al.’s (1989) four-item seeking social support for instrumental reasons subscale that measures seeking advice, assistance, or information. Three items were retained and the sum of squared errors was non-significant (fi(3) = 0.03, p> .05). Emotional social support was measured using Carver et al.’s (1989) four-item seeking social support for emotional reasons subscale that assesses getting moral support, sympathy and/or understanding. The sum of squared errors was non-significant (fie) = 0.24, p_> .05). Psychological escape was measured using items adapted from Carver et al.’s (1989) four-item mental disengagement subscale, which originally measured the use of alternative distractions or tactics to take one’s mind off of a problem. Items include, “I turned to leisure or other substitute activities to take my mind off of things," “I called in sick,” “I slept more than usual,” and “I focused 26 Table 3 Factor Loadings and Reliability for Scales Scale ItemII Factor Loading Avoidance (a = .82) Separated myself as much as possible from my supervisor or other people who created this situation. .70 Tried to redefine my job to avoid interacting with my supervisor. .69 Tried to change responsibilities to get out of the situation if I could. .79 Did my best to get out of the situation. .75 Waited to see how the situation would turn out. Instrumental Social Support (a = .75) I asked people who have had similar experiences what they did. .64 I talked to someone to find out more about the situation. .69 I talked to someone who could do something concrete about the problem. .80 I tried to get advice from someone about what to do. Emotional Social Support (or = .87) I talked to someone about how I felt. .86 I tried to get emotional support from friends or relatives. .75 I discussed my feelings with someone. .87 I got sympathy and understanding from someone. .67 (m continues) 27 Table 3 (cont’d) Scale Item Factor Loading Psychological Escape (or = .81) I turned to leisure or other substitute activities to take my mind off of things. .83 I focused my time and energy on activities outside of work. .83 I called in sick. I slept more than usual. Compliance (or = .81) I devoted more time and energy to meeting my supervisor’s expectations. .77 I tried to work faster and more efficiently to meet my supervisor’s expectations. .84 I tried to get additional people to help me do what my supervisor wanted. .69 I gave my best effort to do what I thought my supervisor wanted. Prioritize (or = .82) I looked for something good in what was happening. .80 I tried to see it in a different light, to make it seem more positive. .69 I tried to grow as a person as a result of the experience. .72 I changed something so things would turn out all right. .63 I drew on my past experiences; I was in a similar situation before. .60 I learned something from the experience. (table continues) 28 Table 3 (cont’d) Scale Item Factor Loading Prioritize (cont’d) I made a plan of action and followed it. I came up with a couple of different solutions to the problem. Test Boundaries (or = .84) 29 I ignored a rule of guideline in order to get my job done. .75 I tried my supervisor’s patience “just a little” by not doing the job exactly the way he or she expected. .78 I made one or two changes in the way I did my job, even if it got on my supervisor’s nerves. .78 I did the job the way I saw best, even though my supervisor wanted it done differently. .68 Obtain Resources (or = .73) I asked my supervisor for additional resources such as funds, supplies, materials, or use of equipment, facilities, or personnel. .81 I sought additional resources to help me get my job done more efficiently. .61 I asked my supervisor and/or coworkers for assistance in completing a particular job assignment. .67 My supervisor was willing to give me more time to get the job done. Negotiation (or = .85) l negotiated with others (including my supervisor and/or coworkers) about the demands placed on me. .86 (table continues) Table 3 (cont’d) Scale Item Factor Loading Negotiation (cont’d) l negotiated with others (including my supervisor and/or coworkers) about their expectations of me. .86 l negotiated with others (including my supervisor and/or coworkers) about desirable job changes. I negotiated with others (including my supervisor and/or coworkers) about my task assignments. a Retained items are those with a reported factor loading. 30 my time and energy on activities outside of work.” Two items were retained, and chi-square analyses of the sum of squared errors was non-significant (g (1) = 0.02, p > .05). Compliance was measured using Tsui et al’s (1995) extra effort subscale. Tsui et al. (1995) report that the scale measures modifying one’s behavior by working harder. Three items were retained, and the sum of squared errors was non-significant (x_2 (3) = 0.2, p > .05). Testing boundaries was measured using an adapted four-item version of Miller‘s (1996) testing subscale. Originally designed to assess the extent to which employees used “testing behaviors to discover actual workplace norms and roles,” the scale has been modified to incorporate role change actions that potentially violates supervisory expectations. Analyses indicated the scale to be unidimensional, and have a non-significant sum of squared errors (fi (6) = 0.93, p > .05). Obtaining resources was measured using an expanded version of Yukl and Falbe’s (1990) upward influence scale. The scale incorporated an item from Yukl and Falbe (1990) assessing the extent to which employees request additional resources from supervisors or coworkers. Subsequent items were derived from Yukl and Falbe’s (1990) discussion of seeking additional resources and Weick’s (1979) notion of slack resources of personnel, time, and money. Three items were retained, and the sum of squared errors was non-significant (_x3 (3) = 0.08 , p > .05). 31 Role negotiation was measured using Ashford and Black’s (1996) four- item job-change negotiation scale that assessed explicit attempts to change the nature of the job. Two items were retained, and the sum of squared errors was non-significant (x_2(1) = 0.02, p > .05). As noted earlier, changing priorities and reinterpretation were combined into a single factor as a result of confirmatory factor analyses. Excluding one item that was deemed inappropriate for this study, four items from Folkman et al.’s (1986) five-item planful problem solving subscale was used to assess changing priorities. These items measured deliberate problem-focused efforts to alter the situation. In turn, Carver et al.’s (1989) four-item positive reinterpretation and growth subscale was used to measure the management of distress emotions. The newly combined scale was labeled prioritize. The sum of squared errors was non-significant (i (10) = 1.15, p > .05). Confirmatory factor analysis test of external conSistency indicated that the scales were distinctive and within acceptable parameters. The sampling error was 9% and the sum of squared errors was non-significant (fi (396) = 448.52, p > .05). Strategy effectiveness. The most effective role coping strategy for participants in their reported role conflict experience was measured by asking participants to identify the items that (a) represented the one response that was most helpful in reducing stress and (b) represented the most helpful in resolving the conflict. 32 Win Cu Demographipipformgtion. In addition, each respondent was asked to report demographic information on age, gender, educational level, years at this organization, and position within a bargaining or non-bargaining unit. Analysis Research question one was initially assessed by computing the frequencies of participants’ reported types of role conflict experiences. Further information on the frequency of their role conflict experiences was provided by a content analysis of their open-ended responses. Subsequently, overall frequency of participants’ role conflict experiences was determined by comparing participants’ reports of the commonness and stressfulness of the particular role conflict experience as well as the duration of the role conflict experience. Research question 2a, pertaining to strategies used to cope with a particular role conflict experience, was assessed through a MANOVA with role conflict type as the independent variable and the use of coping strategies as dependent variables. Research question 2b, regarding the most effective coping strategy for a particular role conflict experience, was analyzed through a chi-square test where the role conflict experience was compared to the reported most effective role coping strategy. 33 Chapter 3 RESULTS Iyp_e_pf Role Com The first research question inquired into the frequency and nature with which employees experienced the five types of role conflict. As presented in Table 4, employees reported experiencing intra-sender conflict (24%) most often, followed by inter-sender conflict (22%). Role overload (16%), inter-role (12%) and person-role conflict (11%) were experienced less frequently. In addition, 7% of respondents reported experiencing multiple forms of role conflict and 8% reported not experiencing any form of role conflict. Given the purposes of comparing five types of role conflict experiences, subsequent analyses excluded those responses reporting multiple or no conflict. A Chi-square test of the goodness of fit of the five role conflict experiences indicated that the frequency with which the role conflict experiences were reported did not significantly vary greater than by chance (fi (4) = 8.00, p > .05). To assess the overall frequency and nature with which each role conflict type was experienced, the following analyses considered the commonness of each conflict type, their duration, the extent of resolution, their stressful nature, and participants’ descriptions. On average, the role conflict experiences reported here began about one year ago. Twelve percent (12%) of respondents reported a role conflict experience that began less than one month ago. Twenty-six percent (26%) of participants reported that the role conflict situation occurred between one and six 34 mo; 2N 3.0 _.N.v vo... 36 co? mm .30... - - - - - - 3w m 8:83. 65:00 02 one was 8.0 8... Rd E.» 3 A 0.83.2 one ovN mad on;q mad med 0.? m? nmoto>0 06m 2? and mad on;q mmé o2” 0.9 9. 0.31683 9: ovN and 3% and one o. _. F F _. 0.0225 Re Ed 3; cod and Re tum Fm consumed“... wad mod vwé mad Ed mvé New mm Enact—2E. mm 5.22 dd :85. mum. 58.2 g e 8580 max 532801 3059333."). mmoccoEEoo Eoocon. Damaged Lo 33. 30553 86:00 0.0”. wotomom Lo Became“. v 033 35 months ago. Additional role conflict experiences began between six months and one year ago, as reported by 24% of respondents. Thirteen percent (13%) of respondents reported a role conflict experience that began between one and two years ago. The remaining role conflict experiences (25%) began three to 20 years ago. Freguency. With regard to the commonness of role conflict experiences, inter-role conflict was rated as more common (M = 4.40) than other types of conflict. Role overload (M = 4.3) was less common as were intra-sender conflict (M = 4.32), inter-sender (M = 3.90), and person-role conflict (M = 3.70). A subsequent analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in the commonness of the role conflict experiences (E(4, 73) = 1.69, p = 0.16). In terms of the duration of their role conflict experiences, there were significant differences in the overall length (i (2) = 94.36, p < .001). A majority of respondents (80.0%) reported their role conflict in this organization as ongoing (see Table 5). Fewer respondents (10.7%) reported their particular role conflict experience as lasting between one and two months prior to resolution. The remaining respondents (9.3%) reported their role conflict as lasting anywhere between three months and two years prior to resolution. With regard to resolution of the role conflict experiences, data indicated that the conflicts were rarely resolved to the satisfaction of employees. lntra- sender conflicts were reported as least resolved (M = 2.09). Person-role conflict (M = 2.30), Inter-role conflict (M = 2.40), role overload (M = 2.40), and inter- sender conflict (M = 2.57) were slightly more resolved to employees’ satisfaction. 36 Table 5 Length of Role Conflict Situation Prior tp Resolution w; Ki'ii'l'hvifl Type of Role Conflict 1-2 Months 3 Mo.—2 Yrs. Ongoing lntra-Sender 3 0 1 8 Inter-Sender 2 3 16 Inter-Role 1 1 8 Person-Role 0 1 7 Role Overload 2 2 11 Total 8 (10.7%) 7 (9.3%) 60 (80.0%) 37 An analysis of variance indicated no significant differences in the degree of resolution among the types of role conflict experienced (E(4,73) = 0.47, p = 0.76). N_at_y_rg An analysis of variance indicated no significant differences in the stressfulness of the role conflict experiences (5(4, 73) = 0.80, p = 0.53). However, responses suggest inter-role conflict (M = 4.30) and person-role conflict (M = 4.30) may be more stressful than other types of conflict. Role overload (M = 3.87), intra-sender conflict (M = 3.77) and inter-sender conflict (M = 3.76) may be perceived as less stressful. A content analysis of open-ended responses describing the role conflict experiences provided details of the nature of these experiences. For example, intra-sender conflict, the lack of comparable company policies and/or regulations, often resulted in confusion regarding procedures and outcomes. One respondent described this type of conflict as, “...two supervisors. . . unable to come up with a solution to a potentially serious dilemma. This happened even though clear-cut practices dealing with these situations are in effect.” Another respondent described intra-sender conflict as, “. ..[a] lack of continuity at the executive level [that] created a lot of problems at the supervisor/staff level.” Inter-sender conflict, referring to a frustration of two or more groups of people who dictate different ways of completing the same task, was described by one respondent as, I’m pulled in two directions and often get two sets of directions/opinions.” Another respondent described inter-sender conflict, “My supervisor and job leader give me the same assignment but give me two different ways to complete the assignment.” 38 Inter-role conflict referred to job demands interfering with demands from life outside of work and was usually described as work-family conflict by participants. Overtime and other work duties took away from time available for the employees’ families. Company downsizing was listed as an organizational- level reason for this type of individual-level conflict. One respondent described, “...I feel guilty about work and home life...young family with kids in sports and various activities l have missed [due to] working mandated overtime.” Another respondent described inter-role conflict as, “Too much overtime expected of me. My family suffers, with me wearing a beeper on weekends and being called away from family functions two and three times a month.” Person-role conflict was reported by employees who felt their work requirements did not correspond with their pre-existing values and beliefs. One respondent told of an incident in which her supervisor requested favors for his favorite clients, "We do favors for certain developers because of political connections. I refuse to sacrifice my ethics/integrity.” Another respondent wrote, “...[I am expected] to bypass correct procedures to get friends or business contacts [dealt with] first. Pressure is put on me [from] my boss’ boss.” Role overload, which occurred when employees did not have enough time at work to do what was expected, was linked, much like inter-role conflict, on the corporate downsizing. Working overtime and at times unpaid, employees citing role overload were frustrated with their long hours. One example read, “We are understaffed in our department. It seems like just when you get caught up, another project is dumped on you.” Another respondent described role conflict, 39 “...the workload keeps increasing. There are three of us doing the work of at least five people.” These self-reports support the unique categories of Katz 8 Kahn (1964). Participants accurately described and provided similar details for each of the five types of role conflict. In doing so, these respondents supported the notion that role conflict is complex and influenced by role senders and the larger organizational context. A content analysis of the open-ended comments revealed some interesting patterns in the responses. Seventy employees (n = 70) described in detail why the role. conflict experiences were problematic, including information on who was involved, what the experience concerned, and how long it took to resolve. When reporting why their particular role conflict experience was problematic, 41% of employees reported corporate downsizing caused an increased workload; 26% reported procedural issues, citing a lack of established and compatible process, authority and/or procedures; 12% cited differing expectations whereby two or more supervisors and/or coworkers could not agree on how to complete a task; 12% reported ethical concerns; 4% were unhappy with the new compensation system; 5% reported other reasons why their particular experiences were problematic. A chi-square test indicated that the sum of squared errors was non-significant (fi (2) = 59.12, p < .05). An analysis of what this situation involved revealed similar patterns to the why responses. Time was listed as a scarce resource in 44% of responses. 40 Incompatible policies and procedures were cited in 21% of responses. Differing expectations were listed in 12% of responses. Ten percent (10%) of respondents reported ethical concerns while the remaining 13% reported other reasons what their situations involved. Results of a chi-square analysis indicated that the sum of squared errors was non-significant (i (4) = 39.50, p < .05). Employees also reported who the situation involved. Supervisors were reported as problematic in 51% of open-ended comments, whereas 29% of responses cited the organization as a whole. Fewer responses involved coworkers (10%), upper management (6%), and the entire department (4%) (x3 (4) = 79.70, p < .05). Furthermore, in an analysis of how long the situation lasted, most respondents (87%) reported role conflict as on-going and without having reached resolution at the time of the response while 13% indicated that the conflict lasted between one day and seven years (i (1) = 54.76, p < .001). Coping Strategies Research question 2a investigated differences in the use of coping strategies across the types of role conflict. The means, standard deviations, and correlations of coping strategies are presented in Table 6. All of the coping strategies were significantly correlated with one another. In addition, the commonness of the situation was negatively correlated with Compliance (_r = -0.30), Obtain Resources (5 = -0.35), and Negotiation (_r = -0.25) strategies. The stressfulness of the situation was negatively correlated with all but three coping strategies: Prioritize, Test Boundaries, and Obtain Resources. The degree to which the situation was resolved was negatively correlated with 41 Avoidance (_r = 033), Test Boundaries (g = -0.29), and Negotiation (5 = —0.30) strategies. In terms of the overall frequency of strategy use, paired t-tests (see Table 7) indicated a number of differences in the overall reported frequency of c0ping strategy use. Prioritizing (M = 2.92) was used significantly more often than all other strategies, aside from Psychological Escape (M = 2.89), which was used almost as often as Prioritizing. Employees reported utilizing Negotiation (M = 2.21) least often to cope with role conflict in general. Obtain Resources (M = 2.59) was used significantly more often than Test Boundaries (M = 2.27). Emotional Social Support (M = 2.62), Instrumental Social Support (M = 2.53) and Compliance (M = 2.49) were each used significantly more often than Negotiation. Emotional Social Support was used significantly more often than Avoidance (M = 2.28) and Test Boundaries. Fifteen participants did not respond to every item and therefore were excluded from this analysis. The results of research question 2a, coping strategies reported by employees for certain types of role conflict, appear in table 8. A multivariate analysis of variance test indicated the presence of significant differences in between types of role conflict experiences (Mult. E = 1.53, _I_3_I-'_ = 4, 75, p = .03, [33 = .52). However, subsequent univariate analyses revealed no significant differences in coping strategy use due to the conflict type. The use of Test Boundaries (5(4, 75) = 2.16, p = .08) and Prioritize (E(4, 75) = 2.33, p = 0.06) strategies were close to significance. 42 mo.va.v~.om..omuz. - 33 2:. one- 2.0- 8.? 8... m3- Fwd- 3o- Bo. and. o: and 8.5.8050 8583: - m; and. «3. Rd. 8.0- mud- and. Sec- 33. :3- o: SN 88.23952: - mud- and. 2.9 So- and. NS- mod. 8...- cud- 8... 83 8285586: - med 9.... 5o 93 9.3 and Bo Ed ta EN 8.6.6828. - de mvd no.0 med ocd find and mm... and moccaommm £500va - and 9.... one 23 :3 and 3.. RN 8.5289...er - woo woo Rd and vmd 88 EN 8:556. - mud 98 etc and a: 38 85.3586. - 93 «so and m3 and 888.852.3838.... - B... a}. NE SN «220.858. - :8 a: BN 3.2852553. - 84 RN 88205.: ANS 2.5 83 av 8v Ab A8 3v 3: 8v Amy 3 0m cum—2 $5295 acaoo Lo «80:99.00 ucm 9.0.6.50 Emncflw memos. o 038. 43 Table 7 Report of Significant Differences in Coping Strategy Means Paired Comparison of Coping Strategy Use 1 df p Prioritize versus Negotiation 5.93 79 <0.01 Test Boundaries 4.89 79 <0.01 Avoidance 4.05 79 <0.01 Compliance 3.26 79 <0.01 Instrumental Social Support 2.87 79 0.01 Obtain Resources 2.58 79 0.01 Emotional Social Support 2.09 79 0.04 Psychological Escape versus Negotiation 4.34 79 <0.01 Test Boundaries 4.32 79 <0.01 Avoidance 4.18 79 <0.01 Compliance 2.40 79 0.02 Instrumental Social Support 2.42 79 0.02 Emotional Social Support versus Negotiation 2.80 79 0.01 Test Boundaries 2.51 79 0.01 Avoidance 2.43 79 0.02 Obtain Resources versus Negotiation 2.80 79 0.01 Test Boundaries 2.44 79 0.02 Instrumental Social Support versus Negotiation 2.21 79 0.03 Compliance versus Negotiation 1 .96 79 0.05 44 Amocmco Eat 2.90.5.8 2.3.5.36 85 85:8 22 Lo one comm .2 .6296 9.38 60m: $95 cmoE $9.9; 3.9.00... and SN .3 SN mg 8.5.582 Ba Ba EN EN New 8588a 5.58 8.8 .8.” 23 8d 52.. 8.5.258 53 .8.“ 8.” EN .5." 8a 8.525 ohm 8N Ba Ba new 85.558 EN 8..” RN and .8...” 88mm. 8.8.9.058 new new .3..." 28 SN 58%.... .508 .8255 an RN and 8d 2d 5856 .38 55855.8. «Nu 2..” SN mud EN 8:852 28:96 5.58 5:58 55:8 55:8 3255 9.58 0.0m ®_O....cow.mn_ 0.0.895 ..wvcwmIEOuE .mvcmmambE «oEcooloBm Lo 09C :0 oommm memos. :. oo w 2an 45 In an effort to identify other possible influences on coping strategy use, a number of exploratory analyses were undertaken. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance based on respondents’ sex was significant (Mult. E = 2.06, Q = 9, 78, p = .04, B} = .19). However, univariate analyses showed significant differences only in the test boundaries coping strategy (5(1, 86) = 4.28, p = .04). Tukey HSD post-hoe analyses indicated that males (M = 2.36) tested boundaries significantly more often than females (M = 1.80). Given the importance of work context in the organization (Goodman, Ravlin, 8 Schminke, 1987), an exploratory analysis of the impact of bargaining versus non-bargaining work unit status was undertaken. As reported earlier, 60% of participants were union members. While a multivariate analysis of variance test for bargaining unit status was nonsignificant (Mult. E = 1.91, _D_E = 9, 77, p = .06, B} = .18), univariate analyses of variance identified five significant differences due to bargaining unit status in Avoidance (E = 6.93, Q = 1, 73, p = .01, if, = .09), Psychological Escape (E = 4.49, Ii = 1, 73, p = .04, R_2 = .06), Prioritize (I: = 4.34, p_l= = 1, 73, 0 = .03, R_2 = .06), Test Boundaries (E = 7.85, Mi = 1, 73, p = .01, _R_2 = .10), and Negotiation strategy use (E = 5.49, E = 1, 73, p = .02, 33 = .07). As reported in Table 9, those in non-bargaining units were more likely to use Avoidance, Psychological Escape, Prioritize, Test Boundaries, and Negotiation strategies than those in bargaining units. 46 t_— fi’Talr-HK'F'; Table 9 Differences in Bargaining/Non-Bargaining Coping Strategy Means Bargaining Non-Bargaining Coping Strategy Mean SD Mean SD Avoidance“ 2.00 1 .24 2.66 1 .26 Psychological Escape“ 2.52 1 .43 3.19 1 .40 Prioritize“ 2.55 1 .12 3.16 1 .02 Test Boundaries“ 1.92 1.12 2.56 1.21 Negotiation“ 1.88 1.14 2.69 1 .32 Instrumental Social Support 2.22 1.25 2.68 1.05 Emotional Social Support 2.42 1.27 2.57 1 .12 Compliance 2.27 1.33 2.48 1.15 Obtain Resources 2.32 1.31 2.73 1.20 “Significant at p < 0.05 47 Research Question 2b was tested by computing the frequencies of each item selected in response to the question, “...please refer back to your responses on the previous pages (1-41) [coping strategies]. Pick the number of the one response that was most helpful to reduce stress in the situation.” Respondents also selected an item for the next question, “...which one was the most helpful in resolving the conflict for you?” Items chosen in response to these two questions were tallied and then divided between bargaining/non-bargaining unit employees to determine whether or not there was a significant difference in the overall use of coping strategies between these two groups. As reported in table 10, results indicated that 69 employees reported items from the Psychological Escape (25%) and Prioritize (25%) subscales most often as helpful in reducing stress ()_<2_ (8) = 56.72, p = .001). Sixty-four respondents listed items from the Prioritize (20%) subscale most often as helpful in resolving the conflict (g (a) = 16.79, 0 = .05). In keeping with prior analyses, differences in the most effective coping strategies for reducing stress and resolving conflict between bargaining and non- bargaining unit status were computed. Analyses indicated that bargaining unit employees chose Prioritize (32%) and Psychological Escape (32%) items most often as helpful in reducing stress. Non-bargaining unit employees, by contrast, listed Prioritize (21%) and Emotional Social Support (21%) items most often as helpful in reducing stress (i (8) = 26.26, p = .001). 48 Table 10 Fr uen of Co in Strat ies Re orted as Most Hel ful in Reducing Stress and Resolving Conflict Reducing Stress Resolving Conflict Coping Strategy Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Avoidance 8 12% 7 1 1% Instrumental Social Support 4 6% 5 8% Emotional Social Support 1 1 16% 3 5% Psychological Escape 17 25% 12 19% Compliance 2 2% 6 9% Prioritize 17 25% 13 20% Test Boundaries 5 7% 5 8% Obtain Resources 1 1 % 7 1 1 % Negotiation 4 6% 6 9% Total 69 100% 64 100% 49 In response to which strategies were most helpful in resolving the conflict, bargaining unit employees chose items from the Psychological Escape (22%) subscale most often, followed by Avoidance (18%) Non-bargaining unit employees chose Prioritize (22%) items most often, followed by Obtaining Resources (16%) (53 (a) = 33.94, p = .001). A final analysis sought to determine the consistency of employees’ survey reporting of the most helpful strategies to reduce role stress and role conflict. Due to the limited number of responses per type of role conflict, inferential statistics were not computed for the following analyses. Instead, descriptive statistics are reported to identify potential relationships. As reported in Table 11, Prioritizing was reported as most helpful in reducing the stress of Inter-sender conflict and Role Overload. The stressfulness of lntra-sender Conflict was most helped by using Psychological Escape. Emotional Social Support was reported as most helpful in reducing stress for Inter-role Conflict. Person-role Conflict was less stressful due to the use of Testing Boundaries. A comparison of tables 8 and 11 show the frequency of survey results reported as most helpful in reducing stress matches the means of coping strategies reported as most used by respondents. As Table 12 reports, Psychological Escape was reported as most helpful in resolving lntra-sender and Person-role Conflict. Prioritizing was reported as most helpful in resolving Inter-sender Conflict. Inter-role conflict was most resolved by Avoiding and Emotional Social Support. Avoiding was also reported as helpful for resolving Person-role Conflict, as was Psychological Escape. 50 Obtaining Resources was reported as most helpful in resolving Role Overload. A comparison of tables 8 and 12 show the frequency of survey results reported as most helpful in resolving the conflict supports the means of coping strategies reported as most used by respondents. The exception is Person-role conflict, for which Testing Boundaries was most used (M = 3.20) and not reported by any respondent as helpful in resolving the conflict. However, Avoidance (M = 3.18) and Psychological Escape (M = 3.00) were also used frequently and both reported as most helpful in resolving the conflict. Many strategies were not reported as helpful for particular types of role conflict. For example, Psychological Escape, while reported overall as one of the most helpful coping strategies, was not reported at all as helpful in reducing the stress of Role Overload, while only one respondent listed it as helpful in resolving Role Overload. 51 65:00 29 he one 3.30.th m .2 397. 9.0239 c. .290... mm 22:33: 59: octane. .6296 9.38 92050.. 3.9 o .23. N .08. o 3.9 o .58. N 8.85:8. see as... o 28. a $08. m .089 e ..,.emN. m 88cm 8.8.89.8. .25. e 2a. a 2:. F .38: a 28. e 8.588 3.8. P 23 o as... o 29 o 29 o 8589.. 5.98 .08. e 29 o 2:: 2m. 2 can. 2 8.8.582 as... o .98. o .08. o .08: N .08: N toaasw .88 .macoEEmc. .08: N 23 o .28. e 2.... e 3.8. e .588 .88 .mcozoEm. .98. F 29 a 3.2 a 29 e 28 o 88.558 .08: N .058. e 29 o 3%. F .08: N 8:852 28.85 8.58 5.5.8 5.5.8 85:8 0.3. 0.9-598. c.9925 82392:. 528.92.. .6296 9.300 895 £263. 5 .2 .o... 60.2 mmfiotomom $6295 mc..moo. 2. 03m... 52 .0558 5.0. .o 55>. 5.30.55 5 .0. 52.5.50 9.3.85. 5 .229. mm 2.525.. 89: 55:05. 355.8 9.58 55.0550. £5. F £5. 5 £5. 5 £5. 5 £5: 5 55.555555 .53 £5. F .£.5N. N £5. 5 £3. 5 .£.5N. 5 55855 5.55.5655 .£5N. 5 £3. F £3. F ..55N. 5 £55. N 25.8.5 ..5..N. 5 £5. 5 £5. 5 £55. N £55. N 585585 5.5.50 £5. F £3. F £5. 5 £5: 5 £55. N 555555552 £5. 5 £3. F £5. 5 £55. N £55. N .5558 5.58 55.5.5285. £5. 5 £5. 5 £55. N £5. 5 £5.... F 58.58 .88 Reese—hm £5F. N £5. 5 £3. F £3. 5 £5. 5 855.5550 £5. 5 55.5. N £55. N. £5. F .055. N 8555.55 58596 5.558 8.558 5.558 55.558 5.0”. 5.9-585... 5.9.5.... 59.8-5.5. 55:85.5... 355.5 9.500 85:00 9.285”. 5. 3351805. 8 nmtommm 8.85.5 9300 NF 535... 53 Chapter 4 DISCUSSION All members of organizations have faced and will continue to face role conflicts. The critical issue, from the standpoint of the organization, is how conflicts, imposed by divergent expectations within the organization, impact on behavior. Certainly, they increase internal stress and frustration. This study showed a number of behavioral and cognitive coping responses to the undesirable nature of role conflict. These findings contribute to the exploration of role coping strategies and further our understanding of employee reactions to role dilemmas. Although previous research has addressed coping strategies for life stress in general (e.g. Carver et al., 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Folkman et al., 1986) and the antecedents and consequences of role conflict (e.g. Fisher & Gittelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985) this particular study provides unique insights into how employees cope with role conflict as one type of work-related stress. Specifically, this study examined five distinct types of role conflict, the contributing circumstances and situations of those types of role conflict, and the strategies used cope with a particular type of role conflict. Results indicated that employees used certain coping strategies to deal with each type of role conflict, that role conflicts in many cases are ongoing, and that role conflicts are often not resolved in spite of the coping strategies used. 54 Nature of Role Conflict Employees’ detailed descriptions of the nature of role conflict in this study were consistent with the multidimensional nature of role conflict. For example, Kahn et al. (1964) and Katz and Kahn (1978) identified five unique categories of role conflict: intra-sender conflict, inter-sender conflict, inter-role conflict, person- role conflict, and role overload. Employees’ scenarios of “supervisors unable to come up with a solution to a dilemma,” “lack of continuity at executive level leading to problems at supervisor/staff level,” and “supervisors not adhering to existing policies and procedures” exemplify intra-sender conflict experiences. In turn, “being pulled in two different directions,” “being given two different ways of completing the same task,” and “two sets of directions/opinions” represent inter- sender conflict. Inter-role conflict is described by employees as “being called away from family functions to work on weekends," “too much overtime with family life suffering as a result,” and “missing out on family activities.” Employees illustrate person-role conflict as “being put in a situation which compromises ethics/integrity,” “pressure put on to do favors for the boss’ friends,” and “doing favors for people with political connections.” Finally, role overload examples are “an understaffed department,” “never able to be caught up with the workload,” and “three employees doing the work of at least five people.” Furthermore, descriptions of who was involved in these role conflict experiences lend insight into how the role set impacts employees’ ability to manage conflict. For instance, many respondents reported their supervisors as problematic, whereas only a few respondents reported co-workers as 55 contributing to role conflict in the workplace. Jackson and Schuler (1985) proposed that leader initiating structure helps to clarify roles but does not seem to reduce conflict. In contrast, they noted that leader consideration may include some level of employee participation, which allows for discussion and possible resolution of role conflict. In addition, a recent downsizing in this organization led to an increased workload for employees, which caused many of them to view time as a scarce resource. Support for the complex and multidimensional nature of role conflict described by previous researchers (Kahn et al., 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978) is important given the widespread use of an 8-item unidimensional survey scale to assess role conflict (Rizzo et al., 1970). While a measure of employees’ overall role conflict experience has considerable merit, there is much value in distinguishing among different types of role conflict. These distinctions prevent the obscuring of specific experiences and enable researchers to explore in greater detail how employees cope with the different types of role conflict. For instance, it appears that psychological escape is most useful in dealing with intra- sender conflict, prioritize with inter-sender conflict, emotional social support with inter-role conflict, test boundaries with person-role conflict, and prioritize with role overload. These possibilities are worth exploring in future research. These reports make intuitive sense when examined. For instance, prioritizing appeared to be most effective for coping with both inter-sender conflict and role overload. When faced with multiple person demands and a lack of time, employees may perceive certain role demands as taking precedence over 56 others. On the other hand, descriptive statistics showed person-role conflict and intra-sender conflict were dealt with by psychological escape. Employees whose values, ethics, and/or resources were compromised may have simply thought about something else. Emotional social support may have proved effective for inter-role conflict, where employees felt demands from multiple roles. These employees sought to gain support from family members when work took time away from family life. Again, it may be worthwhile to explore these descriptions in future research. Bargaining and Non-bargaining Differences This study also showed coping behaviors to be influenced by work group context. Specifically, differences emerged among the coping strategies used by bargaining unit employees and non-bargaining unit employees. Overall, non- bargaining employees appeared to be more proactive in their approach and seemed to perceive that they had more resources available to them for coping in general. For example, non-bargaining employees were more likely than bargaining employees to use avoidance, psychological escape, prioritize, test boundaries, and negotiation. Differences in coping strategies due to work group context are particularly interesting due to the lack of significant differences in the types of role conflict experienced between the bargaining/non-bargaining unit employees. Essentially, the two groups report experiencing the same types of role conflict, but varied in their approaches to coping. 57 These results reinforce the importance of work group and organizational context when examining role stress and conflict in the workplace (Goodman, et al., 1987). Goodman et al. (1987) stated that groups are the central elements for accomplishing work in organizations. As the work context can influence whether employees’ needs are more satisfied than frustrated by their workgroup experience, it is important to examine role conflict and coping behaviors at an appropriate level. While the nature of employees” work can influence individual attitudes and behaviors which, in turn, can impact employee motivation to fulfill the requirements of their roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978), the nature of their interactions with workgroup members may also shape their responses to role conflict. Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) posited that workgroups form attitudes and subsequently enact behaviors based on shared understandings. Employees belonging to a bargaining, unionized group may believe that all cooperative efforts with their supervisor to reduce role conflict have already been exhausted and “survival” modes such as psychological escape may be their only recourse. Further, attempts to alter their situation via their supervisor will be fruitless given that they have lost their negotiating latitude (Graen & Scandura, 1987) to anti- union supervisors. Thus, individual negotiation or other attempts to change the role enactment may be viewed by the employee as unavailable and prohibited by the organization, or undesirable (Zurcher, 1983). Bargaining unit employees may be more likely, for this reason, to acquiesce to legitimate authority and attempt to complete conflicting requests rather than attempting to modify or change an undesirable work situation. 58 Effective Coping Strategies As noted earlier, determining the particular coping strategies in use provides insight into the ways in which employees react to their environment. This study indicated that, overall, psychological escape, prioritize, emotional social support, and obtain resource role coping behaviors are used for adaptation in the workplace. Negotiation, despite its apparent benefits and acclaim (Miller et al., 1996, Miller et al., 1999), was not shown in this study to be widely used. The association of role coping strategies with certain types of role conflict findings support examining role conflict as a complex construct (Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Van Sell, et al., 1981). While this sample may be limited in its generality, it is nonetheless useful to know how states of role conflict are handled by employees and whether their methods of coping are disadvantageous. For example, employee withdrawal from interaction and communication with the role senders, as in the case of person-role and intra-sender conflict, appears to be dysfunctional, at least for the organization (Van Sell et al., 1981). Supervisors are unlikely to understand the difficulty in completing assignments without any direct feedback from employees. While it is possible that in certain cases such feedback may fall on unsympathetic ears, the practice of withdrawing precludes any constructive resolution of the role conflict. In this particular organization, the on-going nature of role conflict experiences and prevalent practices of not engaging supervisors in the resolution of role conflict appear to perpetuate dysfunctional patterns of avoidance, lack of communication, and alienation. Given that individual employees are unable to 59 reduce role conflict on their own, it seems important for both employees and management to find pathways for discussing shared expectations and the resolution of conflicts. Limitations Due in large part to the ovenrvhelming management-union conflict occurring at the time of the study, it became increasingly difficult to tap into the individual-level role conflict experiences. Downsizing and a restructuring of the pay scale, along with attempts to renegotiate bargaining employees’ contracts, left rank-and-file members with feelings of mistrust for management and a desire to protect their anonymity. Thus, employees were reluctant to respond to a survey, even though they were told this study was for research purposes only and would certainly not affect their jobs. As extant survey responses did lend insight into the work experiences of both bargaining and non-bargaining employees, it would be useful to investigate the difference in coping strategies in other organizations. It would also be beneficial to survey employees in organizations where employees feel more comfortable responding to survey questions without fear and trepidation associated with providing explicit feedback. As an exploratory study, this research was also limited by the lack of previous research in describing role conflict and a unified index of coping strategies for role conflict. In fact, Kahn et al. (1964) did not clearly report this methodology, leaving the researcher with the quest to generate role conflict episodes. As reported in the literature review and methods sections, role coping 60 strategy measures are quite disparate and lack overlap in role conflict experience generation and key constructs. Furthermore, this study did not distinguish the relationship between the frequency of reported coping strategies and their perceived helpfulness in reducing stress and/or resolving conflict. Employees may have reported helpful strategies which actually worked for them. Alternatively, employees may have reported strategies as beneficial because, in fact, they were the only strategies used. Thus, future studies assessing employee perceptions should attempt to separate strategy usage from the perceived strategy benefit. Future Research- It also seems prudent to suggest the continued use of a multidimensional assessment of role conflict in organizations. Human experiences in the workplace are complex in nature. Future research should focus on how employees adapt to and change undesirable, stressful events by examining individual assessments of the problematic situation(s) facing each employee. For example, respondents described the extent to which members of the role set impact on role-related experiences in the workplace in detail. Co-workers, while not particularly contributing to role conflict, are certainly available as social support to help employees reduce the amount of experienced role conflict (Wells, 1984). There is an opportunity for future research to identify the extent to which co-workers are helpful in resolving role conflict. This study has important practical implications for an organization concerned about the ways in which the employees react to their roles being 61 modified and taking on additional responsibilities. In service-based industries, it is apparent that one potentially harmful outcome occurs when clients receive low- quality service because the employees are unhappy (Jackson, 1984). For instance, the organization allowing data collection was particularly interested in the results of this study to lend some insight into how individuals cope with incompatible expectations in the workplace, especially since employees experiencing incompatible expectations have reduced job satisfaction, which in turn negatively impacts customer satisfaction. Other potentially harmful outcomes of role conflict include the potential that job involvement may decrease and employee turnover may result. In addition, the family life of the employee may suffer, along with the added possibility of deteriorating health (Fletcher, 1988; Jackson, 1984). At present, it is unclear how organizations seek, if at all, to reduce employee role conflict experiences. For instance, it is uncertain if organizations encourage their managers to keep an “open-door” policy, develop and maintain workplace relationships, confront employees who use testing boundaries and psychological escape as coping strategies, allow participation in decision making, or increase employee feedback. It is important for future research to explore the implementation of organization-wide policies to reduce role conflict as organizations spend considerable time and money in reaction to employee role conflict and as the extent to which organization-wide policies can impact individual-level role conflict experiences is unclear. 62 Endnotes 1 Carver et al. (1989) asked participants to identify a stressful experience in the last two months while McCrae’s (1984) parameter was in the last year and a half (Study 1) and six months (Study 2), Folkman et al.’s (1986) was in the last seven days, and Folkman and Lazarus’ (1980) used within the last month for each data collection. 63 APPENDIX APPENDIX A ROLE CONFLICT MEASURES lntra-sender conflict: Policies and regulations in my job are unclear or incompatible. For example, my supervisor assigns me a task without giving me the proper authorization and/or resources to complete it. Inter-sender conflict: It is not possible for me to please everyone at work at all times because different groups of people expect different things for me. For example, my supervisor and coworkers demand different things from me. filer-role conflict: My job demands interfere with demands from my life outside of work. For example, I sacrifice time with my family to complete work- related tasks. Person-role conflict: My needs, skills, and/or values do not seem to match the requirements of my job. For example, I am expected to do things I don’t want to or cannot do. Role overload: I am not given enough time to do what is expected from me. For example, the amount of work I have interferes with how well it gets done. 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199-214. Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1995). Work-role transitions: A longitudinal examination of the Nicholson model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholpgy, 68, 1 57-175. Beehr, T. A., & Gupta, N. A. (1978). A note on the structure of employee withdrawl. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 73—79. Begley, T. M. (1998). Coping strategies as predictors of employee distress and turnover after an organizational consolidation: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 305-329. Burke, R. J., & Belcourt, M. L. (1974). Managerial role stress and coping responses. Journal of Business Administration 5, 55-68. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F ., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality fl Social Psychology, 56, 267-283. Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect typology: The influence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 201- 218. Fisher, C. D., & Gittleson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320-333. Fletcher, B. C. (1988). The epidemiology of occupational stress. In C. L. Cooper and R. Payne (Eds), Causes, coping, and conseguences of stress at work. New York: Wiley. Folkman, S. (1982). An approach to the measurement of coping. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 3, 95-108. 67 Folkman, S., 8. Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21, 219-239. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLogis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personalig and Social Psychology, 59, 992-1003. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Goffman, E. (1961 ). Asylums. New York: Doubleday. Goffman, E. (1966). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E., 8: Schminke, M. (1987). Understanding groups in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 121 -1 73. Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. Graen, G. B. (1989). Unwritten rules for your career: The 15 secrets for fast- track success. New York: Wiley. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88. Hall, D. T. (1972). A model of coping with role conflict: The role behavior of college educated women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 471-486. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalg: Responses to gecline in firms. organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 68 Hodson, R. (1997). Group relations at work - Solidarity, conflict, and relations with management. Work Occupation, 24, 426-452. House, J. S. (1974). Organizational stress and coronary heart disease: A review and theoretical integration. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 15, 12- 27. Hunter, J. E. (1980). Factor analysis. In P. R. Monge & J. N. Capella (Eds), Multivariate technigues in human communication research (pp. 229-258). New York: Academic Press. Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior 4, 267-320. llgen, D. R., 8. Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psycholmy (Vol. 2, pp. 166-207). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists, Inc. Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds), Hand_book of organizational communication: An interdisciplinaLy perspective. (pp. 679- 740). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Jackson, S. E. (1984). Organizational practices for preventing burnout. In A. S. Sethi and R. S. Schuler (Eds), Handbook of organizational stress coping stratpgies. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36, 16-78. Johnson, J. 0., La France, B. H., Meyer, M., Speyer, J. B., & Cox, D. (1998). The impact of formalization, role conflict, role ambiguity, and communication quality on perceived organizational innovativeness in the cancer information service. Evaluation & the Health Professions 21, 27-51. 69 Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Occupational stress: Studies in lie conflict and role ambiguity. New York: Wiley. Katz, 0., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psycholpgy of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of behavioral research: Educational and psycholpgical inguiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kirmeyer, S. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1988). Work load, tension, and coping: Moderating effects of supervisor support. Personnel Psycholpgy, 41, 125- 139. Kohli, A. K., 8. Jaworski, B. J. (1994). The influence of coworker feedback on salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 58, 82-94. Latack, J. C. (1986). Coping with job stress: Measures and future directions for scale development. Journal of Applied Psycholpgy, 71, 377-385. McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss, threat, and challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholpng46, 91 9-928. Miles, R. H. (1976). Individual differences in a model of organizational role stress. Journal of Business Research 4, 87-102. Miller, V. D. (1996). An experimental study of newcomers’ information seeking behaviors during organizational entry. Communication Studies 47, 1-24. Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92-120. Miller, V. D., Jablin, F. M., Casey, M. K., Lamphear—VanHom, M., & Ethington, C. (1996). The maternity leave as a role negotiation process. Journal of Managerial Issues, 8, 286-309. 70 Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., Hart, 2., & Peterson, D. (1999). A test of antecedents and outcomes of employee role negotiation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 24-48. Monat, A., & Lazarus, R. S. (Eds). (1977). Stress and coping: An antholpgy. New York: Columbia University. Newton, T. J., & Keenan, A. (1987). Role stress reexamined: An investigation of role stress predictors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 40, 346-368. Parker, 8. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal 40, 899-929. Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., Cho, N. G., Jesuino, J. C., D’Amorim, M., Francois, P., Hofmann, K., Koopman, P. L., Leung, K., Lim, T. K., Mortazavi, S., Munene, J., Radford, M., Ropo, A., Savage, 6., Setiadi, B., Sinha, T. N., Sorenson, R., & Vledge, C. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 429-452. Rizzo, J., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I., (1970). Role conflict and role ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Roethlisberger, F. J., 8. Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker: An eccopnt of ereseerch program conducted by the Western electric company, Hawthorne works, Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Roloff, M. E., & Jordan, J. M. (1992). Achieving negotiation goals: The “fruits and foibles’ of planning ahead. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff (Eds), Communication and negotiation (pp. 21-45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Salnick, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224- 253. Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review, 9, 1-16. 71 Sekaran, U. (1986). Dual-career families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The development of peer friendships in the workplace. Western Journal of Communication 6_2_. 273-299. Sias, P. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relationships, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication Research 22, 5-38. Simmons, R. G. (1968). The role conflict of the first-line supervisor: An experimental study. American Journal of Sociolpgy, 73, 482-495. Staw, B. M., & Boettger, R. D. (1990). Task revision: A neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 534-559. Stone, A. A., Greenberg, M. A., Kennedy-Moore, E., & Newman, M. G. (1991). Self-report, situation-specific coping questionnaires: What are they measuring? Journal of Personalfl' and Social Psycholpgy, 61, 648-658. Tsui, A. S., Ashford, S. J., St. Clair, L., & Xin, K. R. (1995). Dealing with discrepant expectations: Response strategies and managerial effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1515-1544. 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. Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. l., 8 Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 34, 314-334. Wells, J. A. (1984). Social support groups. In A. S. Sethi and R. S. Schuler (Eds), Handbook of organizational stress coping strategies. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Whetten, D. A. (1978). Coping with incompatible expectations: An integrated view of role conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 254-271. 72 Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: Random House. Wiersma, U. J., & van den Berg, P. (1991). Work-home role conflict, family climate, and domestic responsibilities among men and women. Journal of Applied Social Psycholmy, 21, 1207-1217. Yukl, G. & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 25, 132-141. Zurcher, L. (1983). Social roles: Confonnitv, ccmflict, and creativgy' . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 73 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIILIIIIIIILIILIIMllI