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