Role Ambiguity in a Changing Environment

---

Back

By Andrew Coutermarsh
Reprinted by permission from the January 2001 issue of Identity Marketing

Few could argue that the workplace has experienced tremendous change during the past 15 years. Let us look at change and its effects on the individual worker and the organization as a whole.

There are basically two types of change that an organization experiences. The first is outside change or what "happens to" an organization. The second type of change is managed or planned change. This latter type is often in response to the first.

Planned change is most often in the form of organizational growth, reorganization, technological changes in how work is performed or managed, turn-over and philosophical change.

More often than not, the workers' reactions to change are less than positive and usually unproductive. The initial reaction to change is one of loss. Dieters rarely see the real benefits to a healthier lifestyle and are focused on things that they can no longer eat. A smoker contemplating the act of quitting begins to think about all the pleasurable things he or she associates with smoking. Workers presented with the possibility of change immediately wonder what will be taken away.

Change is not threatening if it is perceived as helpful. However, change that is not perceived as helpful is fraught with threats. These threats include job loss, loss of prestige or authority, loss of autonomy and loss of control, to name a few.

In discussing change in the workplace it is important to look at the organization as a system. A system seeks to maintain its equilibrium. If a change puts stress on the system, the remainder of the system will exert forces to bring the system back to a state of equilibrium.

The organizational system is comprised of facilities, resources and roles. A "role" is defined as "...the sum total of expectations placed on the individual by supervisors, peers, subordinates, vendors, customers, and others, depending on the particular job."1 This also includes the individual's perception of his or her relationship to the organization.

When an individual or groups of individuals in the workplace are confronted with change, the state of being that results is "role ambiguity." "Role ambiguity is the worker's inadequate knowledge of:

1. role expectations
2. task priorities
3. preferred methods
4. accountability structure
5. organizational rewards and punishments."2

As a person experiences role ambiguity, that person's natural tendency is to revert to the former role because it is known. The individual, left to his or her own devices, is forced to redefine the role. Without the proper supports or interventions this process leads to a multitude of organizational and personnel problems.

One aspect in the way that a person defines his or her role, is in the level of commitment that person is willing to give to the organization.

"Studies have shown that commitment...translate(s) into a willingness to help team members and improved...performance. Low levels of commitment...have been linked to absenteeism (and) turnover."3

Role ambiguity, therefore, has significant impact on the individual, and the organization's goals and objectives. "Role ambiguity was highly linked to employee anxiety, job satisfaction, organizational effectiveness, and the tendency to quit. From a systems point of view, reducing role ambiguity should enhance organizational effectiveness, and increase personal satisfaction."4 Additionally, "ambiguity about role expectations tends to lead to dissatisfaction with the job in general and to feelings of futility. If a worker does not know what he is expected to do in his job, he cannot act appropriately; his sense of effectiveness as an active agent is seriously curtailed."5

This lack of confidence the individual feels extends to managers and co-workers, thus breaking down the effectiveness of the organization. This loss of self-esteem and feelings of frustration result from, and further contribute to role ambiguity.

As the traditional hierarchical structure changes, employees and supervisors lose control of their "old" roles in the organization, leaving them confused, alienated and angry, thus contributing to a loss of motivation. Company expectations and rewards are unclear. There is confusion about responsibilities, goals are unclear or unstated, responsibility is given without authority and there are conflicting organizational demands.

The result can be health problems for the individual, as well as the organization, as the individual's physical and psychological health deteriorates. The manifestations of the individual's health, or "unhealth" often appear in such passive-aggressive behavior as loss of loyalty to the company, decreased motivation and productivity, increased errors and increased absenteeism. In much more overt behavior, the consequences of resistance to change caused by role ambiguity include strikes, slow downs and unionization activities.

What, then, can be done to counter the effects of, and minimize role ambiguity in an environment of change? Management must develop a mindset that recognizes that change will bring resistance and to understand the underlying causes of that resistance. It is imperative that managers view the organization systemically and evaluate the systemic issues involved in the change process. If this is not accomplished, the tendency of managers will be to look at the individuals' resistance and attempt to assess blame, asking, "What's wrong with them?" as opposed to "What is missing in the system?"

Communication is essential in the process of overcoming resistance. Not only communication of what the actual change is, why it is necessary, what the impact on the individual's job will be, and the benefits of the change, but also the vision and mission of the organization from the top levels of management.

"Role ambiguity is often a sign of the loss of a clear sense of mission, purpose, and goals within the micro-system or the overall organization. This lack of clarity at the top ripples down into a majority of the roles in the organization."6 This communication from "the top" is crucial since upper-level management must rely heavily on mid-level management for communication with staff. There also must be a corresponding accountability of mid-level managers for this communication.

Another essential element in the process is involvement of the employees in the planning for implementation of the change. Work teams and ad hoc committees charged with designing specific pieces of the implementation help to create employee "buy-in" and ownership of the change process. This helps to reinforce the feelings that employees do have some control over their destinies.

Other tools include training of new methods, technologies and processes so that the employees develop a certain comfort level that they have the knowledge base necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives communicated by management. With this training there is a need to ensure that employees are given the physical tools necessary to implement any change. This includes computers, forms, detailed written procedures and systems. Very little is accomplished when a person is trained on new computer software if the computer sitting on that person's desk has not been upgraded to handle that software.

One piece that cannot be overemphasized is the need for revised job descriptions and job/task analysis to include the definition of role expectation, task priorities, preferred methods of task completion, the new accountability structure and the organizational rewards and punishment system. Tied to this is a realistic and effective performance evaluation system that includes not only a formal, periodic appraisal, but also frequent, informal feedback

In the October 1996 edition of "HR Magazine," D. Keith Denton discusses "9 Ways To Create An Atmosphere For Change." He offers the following steps as an effective model for successfully implementing change:

1. Create dissatisfaction with the status quo. This involves researching the undesirable effects of the way that things are currently done, and sharing the findings with employees.
2. Reduce the fear of change. Reducing fear is a function of communicating the anticipated change and the effects of the change on the individuals job.
3. Describe the benefits of change. Again, this requires clear and frequent communication describing just how this change will create fewer obstacles, improve workplace conditions and profitability, etc.
4. Build support for change. Building support for change relies on the credibility of management. This can be enhanced by testimonials from people who will implement the change, distribution of facts and figures, acknowledgment of high commitment areas, and continued involvement of the people who will be crucial to the change at all levels.
5. Define specific change objectives. This involves communicating the specifics of each objective in terms of profitability, market share, volume, etc.
6. Tie compensation to change. The reward and recognition criteria must be revised and tied to the specific objectives and processes of the change.
7. Concentrate on measurable improvements. The true emphasis of any change effort must be on achieving specific measurable improvements within a short period of time. These achievements then need to be reinforced through the reward and recognition system.
8. Approach change incrementally. The elephant is eaten one bite at a time. If change is not approached incrementally, then the "elephant" of change is overwhelming and appears to be unachievable.
9. Plan training to coincide with change. Training must be timed to occur with the change. If it is too early it is lost. If it is too late, then the employees have already become demoralized and feel let down by management.

With the growing globalization of the market place, the rapidly expanding technology and the increasing dependence on information, it is inconceivable to expect that the rate of change in organizations will not increase drastically during the next century. If management does not take into consideration the effects on the workplace due to role ambiguity created in the change process, then organizations will not be ready to respond rapidly enough to the need for change. It is only those organizations where resistance to change is anticipated and planned for, that will remain in the forefront of our growing global economy. Andrew Coutermarsh holds a Masters of Science degree in Management from Antioch University/Antioch New England Graduate School where he is also a member of the adjunct faculty teaching Human Resource Development. He is an advisor for student practicum projects. He holds SPHR (Sr. Professional in Human Resources) designation from the Certification Institute of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). Coutermarsh has spent the last 20+ years in the human resource profession and is currently director of human resources for Prime Line.

1Edgar F. Huse, Organization Development and Change (St. Paul: West, 1975) 37.

2William L. White, Incest In The Organizational Family - The Ecology of Burnout in Closed Systems (Bloomington: Lighthouse Training Institute, 1986) 131.

3James Wallace Bishop and K. Dow Scott, "How Commitment Affects Team Performance," HR Magazine (February 1997): 108.

4Huse 37.

5Robert L. Kahn, Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn and J. Diedrick Snoek, Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964) 86.

6White 132.