CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,700

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations

Rizzo, John R., House, Robert J., Lirtzman, Sidney I.·1970·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/2391486
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The literature indicates that dysfunctional individual and organizational consequences result from the existence of role conflict and role ambiguity in complex organizations. Yet, systematic measurement and empirical testing of these role constructs is lacking. This study describes the development and testing of questionnaire measures of role conflict and ambiguity. Analyses of responses of managers show these two constructs to be factorially identifiable and independent. Derived measures of role conflict and ambiguity tend to correlate in two samples in expected directions with measures of organizational and managerial practices and leader behavior, and with member satisfaction, anxiety, and propensity to leave the organization.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2391486

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Use of the Rizzo et al. (1970) scales significantly decreased the magnitude of role conflict correlations with the different performance measures, compared to all other alternative scales of this stressor.

    “we found that the use of the Rizzo et al. (1970) scales significantly decreased the magnitude of both the role ambiguity and the role conflict correlations with the different performance measures, as compared to all other alternative scales of these stressors.”

    From A Meta-Analysis of Work Demand Stressors and Job Performance: Examining Main and Moderating Effects (2008) · cites this paper as Rizzo et al. (1970)

  • Use of the Rizzo et al. (1970) scales significantly decreased the magnitude of role ambiguity correlations with the different performance measures, compared to all other alternative scales of this stressor.

    “we found that the use of the Rizzo et al. (1970) scales significantly decreased the magnitude of both the role ambiguity and the role conflict correlations with the different performance measures, as compared to all other alternative scales of these stressors.”

    From A Meta-Analysis of Work Demand Stressors and Job Performance: Examining Main and Moderating Effects (2008) · cites this paper as Rizzo et al. (1970)

  • The Rizzo et al. role conflict and role ambiguity scales have most often measured these two types of stressors.

    “TheRizzoetal.(1970)roleconflictandroleambiguityscaleshavemost often thus far measured these two types of stressors, and thus most past meta-analytical studies of stressor and performance reflect their psychometric characteristics.”

    From A Meta-Analysis of Work Demand Stressors and Job Performance: Examining Main and Moderating Effects (2008) · cites this paper as Rizzo et al., 1970

  • The results provide evidence supporting a cautious use of the stress measures of Rizzo et al. (1970) in primary stress research.

    “our results provide evidence that support a cautious use of the stress measures of Rizzo et al. (1970) in primary stress research.”

    From A Meta-Analysis of Work Demand Stressors and Job Performance: Examining Main and Moderating Effects (2008) · cites this paper as Rizzo et al. (1970)

  • Researchers who continue to use the Rizzo et al. (1970) scales will likely weaken their ability to explain performance.

    “This finding suggests that researchers who continue to use the Rizzo et al. (1970) scales will likely weaken their ability to explain performance.”

    From A Meta-Analysis of Work Demand Stressors and Job Performance: Examining Main and Moderating Effects (2008) · cites this paper as Rizzo et al. (1970)

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1970-06
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
150
ISSN
0001-8392
DOI
10.2307/2391486
Cited by
3,700
References
0

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review