Psychological Reports, 1990, 66, 295-306.
@ Psychological Reports 1990
EFFECTS O F MODERATING VARIABLES O N PRODUCT MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR ' STEVEN LYSONSKI AND J. CRAIG ANDREWS College of Business, Marquette Universify Summary.-This study examined the moderating effects of role autonomy, need for affiliation, and tolerance of ambiguity on the relationships between role pressures of conflict and ambiguity and personal outcomes of job satistaction, job-related tension, and perceived performance. Data from 166 product managers indicate chat role autonomy and need for affiliation do have moderating effects unlike tolerance of ambiguity. Managerla1 implications are discussed.
The product-management system has become a popular organizational approach over the last 50 years in consumer goods industries; yet few research studies have examined the behavioral aspects. An investigation by Lysonski (1982) established that the product manager's reactions to role ambiguity and conflict were associated with low satisfaction, job tension, and low perceived performance. The purpose of this paper is to report in depth a component of a larger study of the behavior of product managers (Lysonski, 1985). Specifically, this study explored the effects of specific variables in moderating the relationships between role pressures (i.e., role conflict and ambiguity) and personal outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, job tension, and perceived performance) for product managers. As a boundary spanner, the product manager is involved in intensive communication with internal and external role senders. To perform this role effectively, the product manager must develop relationships with a multitude of different departments and people. I n this process, the product manager may confront differing expectations (i.e., role conflict) and uncertainties about how he will be evaluated and how he should perform b e . , role ambiguity). The product manager's personal attributes undoubtedly assist him in dealing with conflict and ambiguity. Specifically, his need for affiliation and tolerance of ambiguity may affect how he reacts to role conflict and ambiguity in this role. The degree of role autonomy he is given may also operate the same way. Over the last 25 years, the burgeoning interest in occupational stress and satisfaction has resulted in numerous models explaining the causality of behavioral variables (e.g., McGrath, 1976; Schuler, 1982). Despite the differences in these models, they involve intrapersonal variables (e.g., locus of control) as moderators of the occupational stressor-strain relationship (Frone 'Address correspondence to Dr. Steven Lysonski, College of Business, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233.
296
S. LYSONSKI & J. C. ANDREWS
& McFarlin, 1989). Empirical support for such moderating effects, however, is mixed and inconclusive (e.g., Beehr & Newrnan, 1978; Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981). Substantial evidence illustrates that role pressures of conflict and ambiguity are related to lower job satisfaction, lower performance, and tension, among other behavioral outcomes (Janis & Leventhal, 1968; Miles, 1976; Teas, 1983; Behrman & Perreault, 1984; Howell, Bellenger, & Wilcox, 1987; Keller, 1975; Dubinsky & Mattson, 1979; Bagozzi, 1978). However, the reaction of individuals to these role pressures may not be universal: d individuals do not respond adversely to these pressures (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snock, & Rosenthal, 1964; Lyons, 1971). For example, Kahn, et al. (1964) found that introversion-extroversion and a flexible disposition could moderate the association between role conflict and job-related tension. Also, Kahn, et al. (1964) observed that various personality characteristics moderated the linkage between role ambiguity and job-related tension and that affective interpersonal bonds mediate the degree of role conflict. In addition, an investigation by Miles (1974) of the moderating effects of affective interpersonal bonds (i.e., trust, liking, respect) on the relationships between role perceptions and personal outcomes for boundary spanners confirmed the moderating impact of affective interpersonal bonds. Other studies also give credence to the moderating influence of certain variables on role pressure-role outcome relationships. Consequently, we posit that various characteristics may have a moderating effect on the relationships between the role pressures of conflict and ambiguity and personal outcome states (i.e., job satisfaction, job-related tension, and perceived performance) for product managers. The moderating variables in this study were chosen on the basis of a review of the literature and are discussed below. Our model focuses on the effect of role autonomy, need for affiliation, and tolerance of ambiguity as moderator (vs mediator) variables as outlined by Baron and Kemy (1986). Fig. 1 illustrates the model and the variables under examination.
The Moderating Variables Role autonomy.-Role autonomy refers to the extent to whlch the job provides the opportunity for the product manager to exercise freedom of choice or discretion over work methods and decisions. If the product manager has more autonomy in this role, he may experience less conflict because of the independence he has concerning complying with the expectations of boundary contacts. With role autonomy, however, the product manager may feel uncertain about how he will be evaluated, resulting in potential role ambiguity. Nonetheless, role autonomy may lead to less tension, better performance, and greater satisfaction even if the ~ r o d u c tmanager perceives conflict and ambiguity because of the latitude given.
MODERATING VARIABLES AND MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR
Role Conflict
Moderating Variables: Role Autonomy Need for Affiliation Tolerance of Ambiguity
i
Personal Outcomes: Job Satisfaction Job-related Tension Perceived Performance
1 b
1
Role Pressures Moderators
x
FIG.1. Variables in the model
Need for affiliation.-Friis and Knox (1972) defined this variable as "the desire to be with other people even if they are strangers; the desire to share common opinions with others." If the product manager feels a strong need to affiliate with others, this may affect the role conflict he experienced. This strong need to be with others may make the product manager feel obligated to meet the expectations of those with whom he interacts. As a consequence, the product manager may experience more tension and less satisfaction when confronting expectations of others; his perceived performance may be ultimately affected. Also, this need may influence the extent of role ambiguity experienced and the concomitant personal outcomes. Tolerance of ambiguity.-Tolerance of ambiguity is defined as "the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable" (Budner, 1962, p. 29). The concept was originally developed from the psychoanalytic tradition by Frenkel-Brunswick (1949). An ambiguous situation was defined by Budner "as one which cannot be adequately structured or categorized by the individual because of the lack of sufficient cues" (p. 30). Three types of ambiguous situations exist: a completely novel situation, a complex situation, and a contradictory situation (Budner, 1962). People who have low tolerance for ambiguity are likely to react differently than those comfortable with ambiguity. Duncan (1972), for example, suggested that individuals with a high tolerance of ambiguity may perceive more uncertainty than their peers with a lower tolerance. Kahn, et al. (1964), moreover, found that role ambiguity was highly related to experienced tension only for those workers who have a high "need for cognition" which is a form of tolerance of ambiguity. Hence, a product manager's tolerance of ambiguity may assist him in dealing with the adverse personal effects of role pressures of conflict and ambiguity.
298
S. LYSONSKI & J. C. ANDREWS
Hypotheses H,: Role autonomy moderates the relationships between (1) role pressures of (a) conflict and (b) ambiguity and (2) personal outcomes of (a) job satisfaction, (b) job tension, and (c) perceived performance. H,: Need for affiliation moderates the relationships between (1) role pressures of (a) conflict and (b) ambiguity and (2) personal outcomes of (a) job satisfaction, (b) job tension, and (c) perceived performance. H,: Tolerance of ambiguity moderates the relationships between (1) role pressures of (a) conflict and (b) ambiguity and (2) personal outcomes of (a) job satisfaction, (b) job tension, and (c) perceived performance.
The Sample The hypotheses were tested using data from questionnaires mailed to 449 product managers in the consumer-packaged goods industries listed in the Fortune 500. After a second mailing, the final sample for analysis totaled 166, a 37% response rate. The mean age was 31 yr., 95% were men, all had college degrees while 66% had graduate degrees, and 4.3 yr. was the mean job experience as a product manager. A check of nonrespondents showed that neither specific industries nor product categories were underrepresented. Instruments Independent variables.-Role conflict, defined as incompatibility of expectations associated with a role, was measured with 10 items. Role ambiguity, defined as inconsistencies about job responsibilities and performance evaluation, was measured with six items. Both scales were developed and validated by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). Several researchers have reported high construct validity and other psychometric properties of these scales which indicate they are sound (Schuler, Aldag, & Brief, 1977). Moderating variables.-Role autonomy is the extent to which the job provides opportunities for a product manager to exercise freedom of choice on the job. Six items, developed by Quinn and Shepard (1974), measured this construct. Tolerance of ambiguity is the ability to react positively to ambiguous situations and was measured by a subset of seven items from Budner's instrument (1962). Budner reported this instrument to be reliable and valid. Need for affiliation is the desire to be with others and was measured using seven items (Friis & Knox, 1972). Dependent variables.-Job satisfaction, measured with five items, was assessed by having product managers indicate their evaluation about promotion opportunities, satisfaction with this position compared to other positions, whether he would recommend the position to others, chances to demonstrate individual ability and initiative, and over-all job satisfaction. A scale of this
MODERATING VARIABLES AND MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR
299
nature was used in other settings (Quinn & Shepard, 1974; Beehr, Walsh, & Taber, 1976). Job tension was measured by 11 items incorporating measures of work-related worry, relief when leaving work, items from the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (1953), and dimensions from a study by House and Rizzo (1972). Perceived performance was measured with two self-rating items concerning over-all performance and performance in coordinating activities for the assigned product line. A 10-point scale was used with endpoints of "just satisfactory" and "clear excellence." Self-rating measures of performance have shown less leniency, less restriction of range, and less error than the purportedly more objective measures of superior ratings (Heneman, 1974). Pym and Auld (1965) have found self-ratings correlated strongly with more objective measures of performance, while Pruden and Reese (1972) found such measures to be related to actual job performance of industrial salesmen. A review of the literature on self-rated measures of performance by Busch and Bush (1978) indicated strong support for their use. TABLE 1 SCALECHARACTERIS~CS M
SD
Cronbach cx
Role Conflict 3.86 Role Ambiguity 2.60 Role Autonomy 4.73 Need for Affiliation 3.94 Tolerance of Ambiguity 2.40 Job Satisfaction 4.44 Job-related Tension 3.31 Perceived Performance 7.48 *This is an intercorrelation coefficient computed for two items.
Balanced six-point Likert scales were used for each of the items except for the performance ratings. The scales were valenced with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 6 "strongly agree." Responses to the items in each construct were aggregated and then divided by the number of items to derive the mean for the scale. Table 1 provides the respective means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients. Because reliabilities exceeding .50 are generally viewed as sufficient for research purposes (Nunnally, 1967), all scales used in this study can be considered reliable. Method of Analysis To estimate the effects of the moderating variables on the hypothesized relationships, the moderating and independent variables were dichotomized into low and high groups; the means of the scales were used for this dichotomization. For example, the mean of role autonomy was used to separate the product managers into groups having high or low role autonomy. After com-
300
S. LYSONSKI & J. C. ANDREWS
pleting this step, the high and low groups on each of the variables were used as the treatments or conditions for an examination of interaction in analysis of variance. The absence of an interaction indicated that the variable was not acting as a moderating variable on the proposed relationship. Miles (1974) used a similar approach in examining moderating variables. An effect was regarded as significant if the p value 5 . 0 5 . RESULTS Tables 2 and 3 provide the results for testing H, dealing with role autonomy. I n Table 2, role autonomy had no moderating effect on the relationships between role conflict and the three personal outcomes. Role autonomy, however, did show a main effect on job satisfaction and perceived performance. As evidenced from Table 3, role autonomy did serve as a moderator for the role ambiguity-job satisfaction relationship but not for the other relationships. I n this interaction, role ambiguity combined with role autonomy to affect the level of job satisfaction experienced. Hence, H, receives some support. TABLE 2 MODERATING EFFECT OF ROLEAUTONOMY ON RELATIONSHIPSBETWEENROLE CONNCT AND JOBSATISFACTION, JOBTENSION, AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND F h n o s
Dependent Variables:
Role Outcome
Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Role Conflict
Moderator: Autonomy
Low
M SD
High
M SD
Job Tension
Low
High
Effects
High
4.42 .96
4.11 .88
RoleAutonomy
6.10
.02
4.69 .86
4.53 .73
Role Conflict
2.81
.10
Interaction
.25
.62
.23
.64
4.78
.03
.26
.61
4.79
.03
Role Conflict
.13
.71
Interaction
.OO
.96
3.24 1.03
3.46 .91
Role Autonomy
M SD
3.10 .65
3.47 .81
Role Conflict
Interaction Perceived
Performance
Low
M SD
High
M SD
P
Low
SD
M
Fl,162
7.31 1.22 7.68 .97
7.24 1.21 7.63 .76
Role Autonomy
The results for testing H, concerning the moderating effect of need for affiliation are presented in Tables 4 and 5. According to Table 4, interactions occurred only for the role conflict-perceived performance relationship. I n this
MODERATING VARIABLES AND MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR TABLE 3 MODERATTNG EFFECTOF ROLEAUTONOMY O N RELATIONSHIPS BETWEENROLE ~ I G U I T AND Y JOBSATISFACTION, JOBTENSION, AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND F RATIOS Dependent Variables: Role Outcome Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Moderator: Role Ambiguity Autonomy Low High Low
M
SD High
M
SD Job Tension
Effects
F,,,,,
P
4.62 .67
4.00 .95
Role Autonomy
5.34
.02
4.62 .85
4.66 .75
Role Ambiguity
4.31
.04
Interaction
5.62
.02
Low
M SD
3.22 1.10
3.47 .87
Role Autonomy
.08
.78
High
M
3.14 .73
3.48 .71
Role Ambiguity
4.38
.04
.08
.78
Role Autonomy
1.84
.18
Role Ambiguity
7.34
.O1
.62
.43
SD
Interaction Perceived Performance
Low
M
SD High
M
SD
7.66 1.07 7.76 .77
7.06 1.23 7.43 1.10
Interaction
TABLE 4 MODERATING EFFECTOF NEEDFOR~ F L H T I o N O N RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLECONFLICT AND JOB SATISFACTION, JOB TENSION, AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND F RATIOS Dependent Variables: Role Outcome Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Moderator: Role Conflict Low Hiah Affiliation Low
M
SD High
M
SD
Effects
4.66 .94
4.23 .77
N . Affiation
4.58 .88
4.35 .92
Role Conflict Interaction
Job Tension
Low
M
SD High
M
SD
2.99 .78
3.47 .80
N. Affiliation
3.23 .77
4.46 .94
Role Conflict Interaction
Perceived Performance
Low
M
SD
7.62 .72
7.05 1.17
N. Affiation Role Conflict
High
M
SD
7.54 1.22
7.82 .70
Interaction
F,,,u
P
302
S. LYSONSKI & J. C. ANDREWS TABLE 5 MODERATING EFFECTOF NEEDFORAFFILIATION O N RELATIONSHIPS BETWEENROLE ~ I G U I T Y AND JOB SATISFACTION, JOBTENSION, AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND F RATIOS
Dependent Variables: Role Outcome Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Moderator: Role Ambiguity Affiliation Low High Low
M
SD High
M
SD
Effects
4.58 .84
4.28 .86
N. Affiliation
4.64 .78
4.17 1.05
Role Ambiguity Interaction
Job Tension
Low
M
SD High
M
SD Perceived Performance
Low
M
SD High
M
SD
F,,,,z
P
.05
.83
7.27
.O1
.38
.54
3.26 .91
3.30 .78
N. Affiliation
1.62
.21
3.12 .81
3.77 .78
Role Ambiguity
6.54
.O1
Interaction
5.13
.03
N. Affiliation
2.08
.15
Role Ambiguity
7.06
.O1
Interaction
3.97
.05
7.23 1.11 7.14 1.33
7.34 .96 7.91 .75
TABLE 6 MODERATING EFFECTOF TOLERANCE OF A ~ ~ B I c U I T O Y N RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLE CONFLICTAND JOB S a n s ~ a c n oJOB ~ , TENSION, AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS,A N D F RATIOS Dependent Variables: Role Outcome Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Moderator: Role Conflict Low High Tolerance Low
M SD
High
M
SD Job Tension
Low
M SD
High
M
SD Perceived Performance
Low
M
SD High
M
SD
Effects
4.84 1.01
4.45 .79
Tol. of Ambiguity
7.10
.O1
4.46 .78
4.11 .87
Role Conflict
7.43
.01
Interaction
.03
.87
.97
.33
2.96 .72
3.50 .85
Tol. of Ambiguity
3.27 .80
3.44 .89
Role Conflict
7.49
.O1
Interaction
2.02
.16
Tol. of Ambiguity
.64
.43
Role Conflict
134
.25
Interaction
.49
.48
7.72 1.05 7.47 1.06
7.41 1.01 7.39 1.11
3 03
MODERATING VARIABLES AND MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR
case role conflict combined with need for affiliation to affect the level of perceived performance significantly. Focusing on the role ambiguity-role outcomes relationships in Table 5 , need for affiliation interacted with role ambiguity to affect job-related tension and interacted with role ambiguity to affect perceived performance. Hence, these interactions suggest a moderating influence of need for affiliation on some of the relationships, partially supporting H,. TABLE 7 MODERA~N EFFECT G OF TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY O N RELATIONSHIPS BETWEENROLE AMBIGUITY AND JOBSA~SFACTION, JOBTENSION,AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: AND F h n o s MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS, Dependent Variables: Role Outcome Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Moderator: Role Ambiguity Tolerance Low Hiah Low
M
SD High
M
SD Job Tension
Low
M
SD High
M
SD Perceived Performance
Low
M
SD
Effects
M
SD
P
4.85 .87
4.38 .88
Tol. of Ambiguity
6.48
.O1
4.45 .70
4.10 .97
Role Ambiguity
9.35
.O1
Interaction
.22
.64
.48
.49
3.01 .79
3.52 .82
Tol. of Ambiguity
3.28 .87
3.43 .81
Role Ambiguity
6.44
.O1
Interaction
1.83
.18
.76
.38
11.55
.O1
.04
.85
7.83 .74
7.25 1.21
Tol. of Ambiguity Role Ambiguity
High
F,,,,,
7.66 .94
7.14 1.19
Interaction
The results from testing the last hypothesis H,, which examined the effect of tolerance of ambiguity, are found in Tables 6 and 7. Given the findings in Table 6, tolerance of ambiguity has a main effect on job satisfaction but no moderating effects on the role conflict-personal outcomes relationships. Similarly in Table 6, there are no interaction effects which indicate that tolerance of ambiguity does not moderate the relationship of role ambiguity and personal outcome. As a result, H, is rejected, implying that role conflict and ambiguity do not combine with tolerance of ambiguity to moderate the personal outcome states arising from role pressures.
Conclusion The same limitations relevant to survey research apply to this study. First, because both the independent and dependent variables are self-re-
304
S. LYSONSKI
& J.
C. ANDREWS
ported measures from the same person and so are likely to create common method variance, the strengths of the relationships may be overstated. Second, the data are cross-sectional, hence inference of causality are limited although inferences can be made indirectly. A final limitation is that findings from self-report data may be due to general response sets that result from personality dispositions such as negative affectivity (Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Webster, 1988). The results indicate that the proposed moderating variables do affect some of these relationships. Role autonomy moderated only the role ambiguity-job satisfaction relationship. I n effect, when role autonomy was high, job satisfaction was higher for product managers who experienced high role ambiguity compared to those with lower role autonomy. Since role autonomy gives the product manager latitude in decision making, it seems that his role autonomy may help to maintain his job satisfaction when role ambiguity is present. Latitude in the job may give the product manager more flexibility in performing the role and less concern about evaluation. A better satisfied product manager may improve productivity and enhance morale which can affect the firm's functioning. Need for affiliation had a definite moderating influence; it affected the role conflict-perceived performance relationship such that product managers with higher affiliation had better performance when role conflict was higher; it affected the role ambiguity-job related tension association in that product managers with higher affiliation experienced more tension when role ambiguity was high than those with a lower need for affiliation. It affected the role ambiguity-perceived performance relationship such that a product manager with high affiliation had higher performance than those with lower need for affiliation. The results seem to show that performance is less impaired by role conflict or ambiguity for product managers with higher need for affiliation. This need may give the product manager the ability to deal with these pressures and may serve to motivate this manager to perform better when such pressures exist. However, need for affiliation also seems to affect the product manager adversely in that the job tension arising from role arnbiguity is heightened for those with high need for affiliation. Tolerance of ambiguity had no moderating influence on the relationships examined. The results of this study point to the importance of certain attributes among managers for dealing with adverse personal outcomes. A product manager's role is often fraught with conflicts arising from variations in goals and objectives either from personnel in the same department or those in other departments. This lack of goal sharing can produce high conflict and ambiguity for the product manager, whose ability to deal with such pressures may be contingent on personal coping skills and internal makeup. Not all product managers have the requisite attributes to deal with these pressures. Hence,
MODERATING VARIABLES AND MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR
3 05
characteristics such as role autonomy (which the organization provides) and internal characteristics such as need for affiliation may help to explain why some are more successful and less stressed than others. The challenge is not only to minimize role conflict and ambiguity inherent in the role but to identify those product managers most capable of dealing with such pressures. I t is hoped that this study will encourage additional research to examine other potential moderating variables that may influence the relationships examined. Moreover, because the dynamics of the product manager's environment are complex, more research is needed to understand how these moderators might interplay with other variables. A better understanding of these variables may result in more effective recruiting and a better appreciation of individual variation in the product-management setting. REFERENCES BAGOZZ,R. P. Salesperson performance and satisfaction as a function of individual diFferences, interpersonal and situational factors. Journal ofMarketing Research, 1978, 15, 517-531. BARON,R. M., & KENNY,D. A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51, 1173-1182. BEEHR,T. A,, & NEWMAN,J. E. Job stress, employee health and organizational effectiveness: a facet analysis, model and Literature review. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31, 665-699. BEEHR,T. A,, WNSH, J. T., & TABER,T. D. Relationship of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 41-47. BEHRMAN, D. N., & PERRE.AULT,W. D. A role stress model of the performance and satisfaction of industrial salesperson. Journal of Marketing, 1984, 84, 9-21. BRIEF,A. P., BURKE,M. J., GEORGE,J. M., ROBINSON, B. S., & WEBSTER,J. Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1988, 73, 193-198. BUDNER,S. Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personalily, 1962, 30, 29-50.
B u s c ~ ,P,
& BUSH, R. F, Women contrasted to men in the industrial salesforce: job satisfaction, values, role clarity, performance and propensicy to leave. Journal of Marketing Research, 1978, 15, 438-448. DUBINSKY, A. J., & MATTSON,B. E. Consequences of role conflict and ambiguity experienced by retail salespeople. Journal of Retailing, 1979, 55, 70-80. DUNCAN,R. B. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 313-327. FRENKEL-BRUNSWCK, E. Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 1949, 17, 108-143. F ~ n s R., , & KNOX,A. A. A validity scud of scales to measure need for achievement, need for affiliation, impulsiveness and intedectuality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1972, 32, 147-154. FRONE,M. R., & MCFARLTN, D. B. Chronic occupational stressors, self-focused attention, and well-being: testing a cybernetic model of stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989, 74, forthcoming. HENEMAN, G. Comparisons of self and superior ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 638-642. HOUSE,R., & Rrzzo, J. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, 467-505. HOWELL,R. D., BELLENGER, D. N., & WILCOX,J. B. Self-esteem, role stress and job satisfaction among marketing managers. Journal ofBusiness Research, 1987, 15, 71-84. JANIS,I. L., & LEVENTHAL, H. Human reactions to stress. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert
306
S. LYSONSKI & J. C. ANDREWS
(Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1968. Pp. 1041-1085. KAHN, R. L., WOLFE,D. M., Q ~ NR., P., SNOCK,J. D., & ROSENTHAL, R. A. Organizational sfress. New York: Wiley, 1964. KELLER, R. T. Role conflict and ambiguity: correlates with job satisfaction and values. Personnel Psychology, 1975, 28, 57-64. LYONS,T. Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension and withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 99-110. LYSONSKI, S. Behavioral effects of boundary spanning on the product manager. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 1982, 48, 242-245. LYSONSKI,S. A boundary theory investigation of the product manager's role. Journal of Marketing, 1985, 49, 26-40. MCGRATH,J. E. Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1976. MILES, R. H . Role conflict and ambiguity in boundary and internal roles: a field stud using role-set analysis and a panel design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. o Y ~ o r t h Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1974. MILES, R. H . An empirical test of causal inference between role perceptions of conflict and ambiguity and various personal outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 60, 334-339.
NIJNNWY,J. C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. PRUDEN,H. O., & REESE,R. Interorganizational role-set relations and the performance and satisfaction of industrial salesmen. Administrative Science Quartdy, 1972, 17, 601-609. P m , D. L. A,, & AULD. H D The self-rating as a measure of employee satisfactoriness. Occupational Psychology, 1965, 39, 103-113. Q ~ NR., P.,& SHEPARD. L ] The 1972-1973 quality of employment survy:,descriptive statistics with comparison data from the 1369-1970 survq of working con zhons. Ann Arbor, MI: The Institute for Social Research, 1974. RIZZO,J., HOUSE,R., & LIRTZMAN, S. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 150-163. SCHULER, R. S. An integrative transactional process model of stress in organizations. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 1982, 3, 5-19. SCHULER, R. S., ALDAG, R. J., & B w , A. l? Role conflict and ambiguity: a scale analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 16, 111-128. TAYLOR, J. A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 285-290.
TEAS,R. K. Su ervisory behavior, role stress, and job satisfaction of industrial salespeople. Journal or~arketingResearch, 1983, 20, 84-91. VANSELL, M., BRIEF, A. P, & SCHWLER, R. S. Role conflict and role ambiguity: integration of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relntions, 1981, 34, 43-71. Accepted January 24, 1990.
@ Psychological Reports 1990
EFFECTS O F MODERATING VARIABLES O N PRODUCT MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR ' STEVEN LYSONSKI AND J. CRAIG ANDREWS College of Business, Marquette Universify Summary.-This study examined the moderating effects of role autonomy, need for affiliation, and tolerance of ambiguity on the relationships between role pressures of conflict and ambiguity and personal outcomes of job satistaction, job-related tension, and perceived performance. Data from 166 product managers indicate chat role autonomy and need for affiliation do have moderating effects unlike tolerance of ambiguity. Managerla1 implications are discussed.
The product-management system has become a popular organizational approach over the last 50 years in consumer goods industries; yet few research studies have examined the behavioral aspects. An investigation by Lysonski (1982) established that the product manager's reactions to role ambiguity and conflict were associated with low satisfaction, job tension, and low perceived performance. The purpose of this paper is to report in depth a component of a larger study of the behavior of product managers (Lysonski, 1985). Specifically, this study explored the effects of specific variables in moderating the relationships between role pressures (i.e., role conflict and ambiguity) and personal outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, job tension, and perceived performance) for product managers. As a boundary spanner, the product manager is involved in intensive communication with internal and external role senders. To perform this role effectively, the product manager must develop relationships with a multitude of different departments and people. I n this process, the product manager may confront differing expectations (i.e., role conflict) and uncertainties about how he will be evaluated and how he should perform b e . , role ambiguity). The product manager's personal attributes undoubtedly assist him in dealing with conflict and ambiguity. Specifically, his need for affiliation and tolerance of ambiguity may affect how he reacts to role conflict and ambiguity in this role. The degree of role autonomy he is given may also operate the same way. Over the last 25 years, the burgeoning interest in occupational stress and satisfaction has resulted in numerous models explaining the causality of behavioral variables (e.g., McGrath, 1976; Schuler, 1982). Despite the differences in these models, they involve intrapersonal variables (e.g., locus of control) as moderators of the occupational stressor-strain relationship (Frone 'Address correspondence to Dr. Steven Lysonski, College of Business, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233.
296
S. LYSONSKI & J. C. ANDREWS
& McFarlin, 1989). Empirical support for such moderating effects, however, is mixed and inconclusive (e.g., Beehr & Newrnan, 1978; Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981). Substantial evidence illustrates that role pressures of conflict and ambiguity are related to lower job satisfaction, lower performance, and tension, among other behavioral outcomes (Janis & Leventhal, 1968; Miles, 1976; Teas, 1983; Behrman & Perreault, 1984; Howell, Bellenger, & Wilcox, 1987; Keller, 1975; Dubinsky & Mattson, 1979; Bagozzi, 1978). However, the reaction of individuals to these role pressures may not be universal: d individuals do not respond adversely to these pressures (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snock, & Rosenthal, 1964; Lyons, 1971). For example, Kahn, et al. (1964) found that introversion-extroversion and a flexible disposition could moderate the association between role conflict and job-related tension. Also, Kahn, et al. (1964) observed that various personality characteristics moderated the linkage between role ambiguity and job-related tension and that affective interpersonal bonds mediate the degree of role conflict. In addition, an investigation by Miles (1974) of the moderating effects of affective interpersonal bonds (i.e., trust, liking, respect) on the relationships between role perceptions and personal outcomes for boundary spanners confirmed the moderating impact of affective interpersonal bonds. Other studies also give credence to the moderating influence of certain variables on role pressure-role outcome relationships. Consequently, we posit that various characteristics may have a moderating effect on the relationships between the role pressures of conflict and ambiguity and personal outcome states (i.e., job satisfaction, job-related tension, and perceived performance) for product managers. The moderating variables in this study were chosen on the basis of a review of the literature and are discussed below. Our model focuses on the effect of role autonomy, need for affiliation, and tolerance of ambiguity as moderator (vs mediator) variables as outlined by Baron and Kemy (1986). Fig. 1 illustrates the model and the variables under examination.
The Moderating Variables Role autonomy.-Role autonomy refers to the extent to whlch the job provides the opportunity for the product manager to exercise freedom of choice or discretion over work methods and decisions. If the product manager has more autonomy in this role, he may experience less conflict because of the independence he has concerning complying with the expectations of boundary contacts. With role autonomy, however, the product manager may feel uncertain about how he will be evaluated, resulting in potential role ambiguity. Nonetheless, role autonomy may lead to less tension, better performance, and greater satisfaction even if the ~ r o d u c tmanager perceives conflict and ambiguity because of the latitude given.
MODERATING VARIABLES AND MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR
Role Conflict
Moderating Variables: Role Autonomy Need for Affiliation Tolerance of Ambiguity
i
Personal Outcomes: Job Satisfaction Job-related Tension Perceived Performance
1 b
1
Role Pressures Moderators
x
FIG.1. Variables in the model
Need for affiliation.-Friis and Knox (1972) defined this variable as "the desire to be with other people even if they are strangers; the desire to share common opinions with others." If the product manager feels a strong need to affiliate with others, this may affect the role conflict he experienced. This strong need to be with others may make the product manager feel obligated to meet the expectations of those with whom he interacts. As a consequence, the product manager may experience more tension and less satisfaction when confronting expectations of others; his perceived performance may be ultimately affected. Also, this need may influence the extent of role ambiguity experienced and the concomitant personal outcomes. Tolerance of ambiguity.-Tolerance of ambiguity is defined as "the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable" (Budner, 1962, p. 29). The concept was originally developed from the psychoanalytic tradition by Frenkel-Brunswick (1949). An ambiguous situation was defined by Budner "as one which cannot be adequately structured or categorized by the individual because of the lack of sufficient cues" (p. 30). Three types of ambiguous situations exist: a completely novel situation, a complex situation, and a contradictory situation (Budner, 1962). People who have low tolerance for ambiguity are likely to react differently than those comfortable with ambiguity. Duncan (1972), for example, suggested that individuals with a high tolerance of ambiguity may perceive more uncertainty than their peers with a lower tolerance. Kahn, et al. (1964), moreover, found that role ambiguity was highly related to experienced tension only for those workers who have a high "need for cognition" which is a form of tolerance of ambiguity. Hence, a product manager's tolerance of ambiguity may assist him in dealing with the adverse personal effects of role pressures of conflict and ambiguity.
298
S. LYSONSKI & J. C. ANDREWS
Hypotheses H,: Role autonomy moderates the relationships between (1) role pressures of (a) conflict and (b) ambiguity and (2) personal outcomes of (a) job satisfaction, (b) job tension, and (c) perceived performance. H,: Need for affiliation moderates the relationships between (1) role pressures of (a) conflict and (b) ambiguity and (2) personal outcomes of (a) job satisfaction, (b) job tension, and (c) perceived performance. H,: Tolerance of ambiguity moderates the relationships between (1) role pressures of (a) conflict and (b) ambiguity and (2) personal outcomes of (a) job satisfaction, (b) job tension, and (c) perceived performance.
The Sample The hypotheses were tested using data from questionnaires mailed to 449 product managers in the consumer-packaged goods industries listed in the Fortune 500. After a second mailing, the final sample for analysis totaled 166, a 37% response rate. The mean age was 31 yr., 95% were men, all had college degrees while 66% had graduate degrees, and 4.3 yr. was the mean job experience as a product manager. A check of nonrespondents showed that neither specific industries nor product categories were underrepresented. Instruments Independent variables.-Role conflict, defined as incompatibility of expectations associated with a role, was measured with 10 items. Role ambiguity, defined as inconsistencies about job responsibilities and performance evaluation, was measured with six items. Both scales were developed and validated by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). Several researchers have reported high construct validity and other psychometric properties of these scales which indicate they are sound (Schuler, Aldag, & Brief, 1977). Moderating variables.-Role autonomy is the extent to which the job provides opportunities for a product manager to exercise freedom of choice on the job. Six items, developed by Quinn and Shepard (1974), measured this construct. Tolerance of ambiguity is the ability to react positively to ambiguous situations and was measured by a subset of seven items from Budner's instrument (1962). Budner reported this instrument to be reliable and valid. Need for affiliation is the desire to be with others and was measured using seven items (Friis & Knox, 1972). Dependent variables.-Job satisfaction, measured with five items, was assessed by having product managers indicate their evaluation about promotion opportunities, satisfaction with this position compared to other positions, whether he would recommend the position to others, chances to demonstrate individual ability and initiative, and over-all job satisfaction. A scale of this
MODERATING VARIABLES AND MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR
299
nature was used in other settings (Quinn & Shepard, 1974; Beehr, Walsh, & Taber, 1976). Job tension was measured by 11 items incorporating measures of work-related worry, relief when leaving work, items from the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (1953), and dimensions from a study by House and Rizzo (1972). Perceived performance was measured with two self-rating items concerning over-all performance and performance in coordinating activities for the assigned product line. A 10-point scale was used with endpoints of "just satisfactory" and "clear excellence." Self-rating measures of performance have shown less leniency, less restriction of range, and less error than the purportedly more objective measures of superior ratings (Heneman, 1974). Pym and Auld (1965) have found self-ratings correlated strongly with more objective measures of performance, while Pruden and Reese (1972) found such measures to be related to actual job performance of industrial salesmen. A review of the literature on self-rated measures of performance by Busch and Bush (1978) indicated strong support for their use. TABLE 1 SCALECHARACTERIS~CS M
SD
Cronbach cx
Role Conflict 3.86 Role Ambiguity 2.60 Role Autonomy 4.73 Need for Affiliation 3.94 Tolerance of Ambiguity 2.40 Job Satisfaction 4.44 Job-related Tension 3.31 Perceived Performance 7.48 *This is an intercorrelation coefficient computed for two items.
Balanced six-point Likert scales were used for each of the items except for the performance ratings. The scales were valenced with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 6 "strongly agree." Responses to the items in each construct were aggregated and then divided by the number of items to derive the mean for the scale. Table 1 provides the respective means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients. Because reliabilities exceeding .50 are generally viewed as sufficient for research purposes (Nunnally, 1967), all scales used in this study can be considered reliable. Method of Analysis To estimate the effects of the moderating variables on the hypothesized relationships, the moderating and independent variables were dichotomized into low and high groups; the means of the scales were used for this dichotomization. For example, the mean of role autonomy was used to separate the product managers into groups having high or low role autonomy. After com-
300
S. LYSONSKI & J. C. ANDREWS
pleting this step, the high and low groups on each of the variables were used as the treatments or conditions for an examination of interaction in analysis of variance. The absence of an interaction indicated that the variable was not acting as a moderating variable on the proposed relationship. Miles (1974) used a similar approach in examining moderating variables. An effect was regarded as significant if the p value 5 . 0 5 . RESULTS Tables 2 and 3 provide the results for testing H, dealing with role autonomy. I n Table 2, role autonomy had no moderating effect on the relationships between role conflict and the three personal outcomes. Role autonomy, however, did show a main effect on job satisfaction and perceived performance. As evidenced from Table 3, role autonomy did serve as a moderator for the role ambiguity-job satisfaction relationship but not for the other relationships. I n this interaction, role ambiguity combined with role autonomy to affect the level of job satisfaction experienced. Hence, H, receives some support. TABLE 2 MODERATING EFFECT OF ROLEAUTONOMY ON RELATIONSHIPSBETWEENROLE CONNCT AND JOBSATISFACTION, JOBTENSION, AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND F h n o s
Dependent Variables:
Role Outcome
Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Role Conflict
Moderator: Autonomy
Low
M SD
High
M SD
Job Tension
Low
High
Effects
High
4.42 .96
4.11 .88
RoleAutonomy
6.10
.02
4.69 .86
4.53 .73
Role Conflict
2.81
.10
Interaction
.25
.62
.23
.64
4.78
.03
.26
.61
4.79
.03
Role Conflict
.13
.71
Interaction
.OO
.96
3.24 1.03
3.46 .91
Role Autonomy
M SD
3.10 .65
3.47 .81
Role Conflict
Interaction Perceived
Performance
Low
M SD
High
M SD
P
Low
SD
M
Fl,162
7.31 1.22 7.68 .97
7.24 1.21 7.63 .76
Role Autonomy
The results for testing H, concerning the moderating effect of need for affiliation are presented in Tables 4 and 5. According to Table 4, interactions occurred only for the role conflict-perceived performance relationship. I n this
MODERATING VARIABLES AND MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR TABLE 3 MODERATTNG EFFECTOF ROLEAUTONOMY O N RELATIONSHIPS BETWEENROLE ~ I G U I T AND Y JOBSATISFACTION, JOBTENSION, AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND F RATIOS Dependent Variables: Role Outcome Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Moderator: Role Ambiguity Autonomy Low High Low
M
SD High
M
SD Job Tension
Effects
F,,,,,
P
4.62 .67
4.00 .95
Role Autonomy
5.34
.02
4.62 .85
4.66 .75
Role Ambiguity
4.31
.04
Interaction
5.62
.02
Low
M SD
3.22 1.10
3.47 .87
Role Autonomy
.08
.78
High
M
3.14 .73
3.48 .71
Role Ambiguity
4.38
.04
.08
.78
Role Autonomy
1.84
.18
Role Ambiguity
7.34
.O1
.62
.43
SD
Interaction Perceived Performance
Low
M
SD High
M
SD
7.66 1.07 7.76 .77
7.06 1.23 7.43 1.10
Interaction
TABLE 4 MODERATING EFFECTOF NEEDFOR~ F L H T I o N O N RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLECONFLICT AND JOB SATISFACTION, JOB TENSION, AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND F RATIOS Dependent Variables: Role Outcome Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Moderator: Role Conflict Low Hiah Affiliation Low
M
SD High
M
SD
Effects
4.66 .94
4.23 .77
N . Affiation
4.58 .88
4.35 .92
Role Conflict Interaction
Job Tension
Low
M
SD High
M
SD
2.99 .78
3.47 .80
N. Affiliation
3.23 .77
4.46 .94
Role Conflict Interaction
Perceived Performance
Low
M
SD
7.62 .72
7.05 1.17
N. Affiation Role Conflict
High
M
SD
7.54 1.22
7.82 .70
Interaction
F,,,u
P
302
S. LYSONSKI & J. C. ANDREWS TABLE 5 MODERATING EFFECTOF NEEDFORAFFILIATION O N RELATIONSHIPS BETWEENROLE ~ I G U I T Y AND JOB SATISFACTION, JOBTENSION, AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND F RATIOS
Dependent Variables: Role Outcome Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Moderator: Role Ambiguity Affiliation Low High Low
M
SD High
M
SD
Effects
4.58 .84
4.28 .86
N. Affiliation
4.64 .78
4.17 1.05
Role Ambiguity Interaction
Job Tension
Low
M
SD High
M
SD Perceived Performance
Low
M
SD High
M
SD
F,,,,z
P
.05
.83
7.27
.O1
.38
.54
3.26 .91
3.30 .78
N. Affiliation
1.62
.21
3.12 .81
3.77 .78
Role Ambiguity
6.54
.O1
Interaction
5.13
.03
N. Affiliation
2.08
.15
Role Ambiguity
7.06
.O1
Interaction
3.97
.05
7.23 1.11 7.14 1.33
7.34 .96 7.91 .75
TABLE 6 MODERATING EFFECTOF TOLERANCE OF A ~ ~ B I c U I T O Y N RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLE CONFLICTAND JOB S a n s ~ a c n oJOB ~ , TENSION, AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS,A N D F RATIOS Dependent Variables: Role Outcome Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Moderator: Role Conflict Low High Tolerance Low
M SD
High
M
SD Job Tension
Low
M SD
High
M
SD Perceived Performance
Low
M
SD High
M
SD
Effects
4.84 1.01
4.45 .79
Tol. of Ambiguity
7.10
.O1
4.46 .78
4.11 .87
Role Conflict
7.43
.01
Interaction
.03
.87
.97
.33
2.96 .72
3.50 .85
Tol. of Ambiguity
3.27 .80
3.44 .89
Role Conflict
7.49
.O1
Interaction
2.02
.16
Tol. of Ambiguity
.64
.43
Role Conflict
134
.25
Interaction
.49
.48
7.72 1.05 7.47 1.06
7.41 1.01 7.39 1.11
3 03
MODERATING VARIABLES AND MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR
case role conflict combined with need for affiliation to affect the level of perceived performance significantly. Focusing on the role ambiguity-role outcomes relationships in Table 5 , need for affiliation interacted with role ambiguity to affect job-related tension and interacted with role ambiguity to affect perceived performance. Hence, these interactions suggest a moderating influence of need for affiliation on some of the relationships, partially supporting H,. TABLE 7 MODERA~N EFFECT G OF TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY O N RELATIONSHIPS BETWEENROLE AMBIGUITY AND JOBSA~SFACTION, JOBTENSION,AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: AND F h n o s MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS, Dependent Variables: Role Outcome Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Moderator: Role Ambiguity Tolerance Low Hiah Low
M
SD High
M
SD Job Tension
Low
M
SD High
M
SD Perceived Performance
Low
M
SD
Effects
M
SD
P
4.85 .87
4.38 .88
Tol. of Ambiguity
6.48
.O1
4.45 .70
4.10 .97
Role Ambiguity
9.35
.O1
Interaction
.22
.64
.48
.49
3.01 .79
3.52 .82
Tol. of Ambiguity
3.28 .87
3.43 .81
Role Ambiguity
6.44
.O1
Interaction
1.83
.18
.76
.38
11.55
.O1
.04
.85
7.83 .74
7.25 1.21
Tol. of Ambiguity Role Ambiguity
High
F,,,,,
7.66 .94
7.14 1.19
Interaction
The results from testing the last hypothesis H,, which examined the effect of tolerance of ambiguity, are found in Tables 6 and 7. Given the findings in Table 6, tolerance of ambiguity has a main effect on job satisfaction but no moderating effects on the role conflict-personal outcomes relationships. Similarly in Table 6, there are no interaction effects which indicate that tolerance of ambiguity does not moderate the relationship of role ambiguity and personal outcome. As a result, H, is rejected, implying that role conflict and ambiguity do not combine with tolerance of ambiguity to moderate the personal outcome states arising from role pressures.
Conclusion The same limitations relevant to survey research apply to this study. First, because both the independent and dependent variables are self-re-
304
S. LYSONSKI
& J.
C. ANDREWS
ported measures from the same person and so are likely to create common method variance, the strengths of the relationships may be overstated. Second, the data are cross-sectional, hence inference of causality are limited although inferences can be made indirectly. A final limitation is that findings from self-report data may be due to general response sets that result from personality dispositions such as negative affectivity (Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Webster, 1988). The results indicate that the proposed moderating variables do affect some of these relationships. Role autonomy moderated only the role ambiguity-job satisfaction relationship. I n effect, when role autonomy was high, job satisfaction was higher for product managers who experienced high role ambiguity compared to those with lower role autonomy. Since role autonomy gives the product manager latitude in decision making, it seems that his role autonomy may help to maintain his job satisfaction when role ambiguity is present. Latitude in the job may give the product manager more flexibility in performing the role and less concern about evaluation. A better satisfied product manager may improve productivity and enhance morale which can affect the firm's functioning. Need for affiliation had a definite moderating influence; it affected the role conflict-perceived performance relationship such that product managers with higher affiliation had better performance when role conflict was higher; it affected the role ambiguity-job related tension association in that product managers with higher affiliation experienced more tension when role ambiguity was high than those with a lower need for affiliation. It affected the role ambiguity-perceived performance relationship such that a product manager with high affiliation had higher performance than those with lower need for affiliation. The results seem to show that performance is less impaired by role conflict or ambiguity for product managers with higher need for affiliation. This need may give the product manager the ability to deal with these pressures and may serve to motivate this manager to perform better when such pressures exist. However, need for affiliation also seems to affect the product manager adversely in that the job tension arising from role arnbiguity is heightened for those with high need for affiliation. Tolerance of ambiguity had no moderating influence on the relationships examined. The results of this study point to the importance of certain attributes among managers for dealing with adverse personal outcomes. A product manager's role is often fraught with conflicts arising from variations in goals and objectives either from personnel in the same department or those in other departments. This lack of goal sharing can produce high conflict and ambiguity for the product manager, whose ability to deal with such pressures may be contingent on personal coping skills and internal makeup. Not all product managers have the requisite attributes to deal with these pressures. Hence,
MODERATING VARIABLES AND MANAGERS' BEHAVIOR
3 05
characteristics such as role autonomy (which the organization provides) and internal characteristics such as need for affiliation may help to explain why some are more successful and less stressed than others. The challenge is not only to minimize role conflict and ambiguity inherent in the role but to identify those product managers most capable of dealing with such pressures. I t is hoped that this study will encourage additional research to examine other potential moderating variables that may influence the relationships examined. Moreover, because the dynamics of the product manager's environment are complex, more research is needed to understand how these moderators might interplay with other variables. A better understanding of these variables may result in more effective recruiting and a better appreciation of individual variation in the product-management setting. REFERENCES BAGOZZ,R. P. Salesperson performance and satisfaction as a function of individual diFferences, interpersonal and situational factors. Journal ofMarketing Research, 1978, 15, 517-531. BARON,R. M., & KENNY,D. A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51, 1173-1182. BEEHR,T. A,, & NEWMAN,J. E. Job stress, employee health and organizational effectiveness: a facet analysis, model and Literature review. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31, 665-699. BEEHR,T. A,, WNSH, J. T., & TABER,T. D. Relationship of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 41-47. BEHRMAN, D. N., & PERRE.AULT,W. D. A role stress model of the performance and satisfaction of industrial salesperson. Journal of Marketing, 1984, 84, 9-21. BRIEF,A. P., BURKE,M. J., GEORGE,J. M., ROBINSON, B. S., & WEBSTER,J. Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1988, 73, 193-198. BUDNER,S. Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personalily, 1962, 30, 29-50.
B u s c ~ ,P,
& BUSH, R. F, Women contrasted to men in the industrial salesforce: job satisfaction, values, role clarity, performance and propensicy to leave. Journal of Marketing Research, 1978, 15, 438-448. DUBINSKY, A. J., & MATTSON,B. E. Consequences of role conflict and ambiguity experienced by retail salespeople. Journal of Retailing, 1979, 55, 70-80. DUNCAN,R. B. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 313-327. FRENKEL-BRUNSWCK, E. Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 1949, 17, 108-143. F ~ n s R., , & KNOX,A. A. A validity scud of scales to measure need for achievement, need for affiliation, impulsiveness and intedectuality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1972, 32, 147-154. FRONE,M. R., & MCFARLTN, D. B. Chronic occupational stressors, self-focused attention, and well-being: testing a cybernetic model of stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989, 74, forthcoming. HENEMAN, G. Comparisons of self and superior ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 638-642. HOUSE,R., & Rrzzo, J. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, 467-505. HOWELL,R. D., BELLENGER, D. N., & WILCOX,J. B. Self-esteem, role stress and job satisfaction among marketing managers. Journal ofBusiness Research, 1987, 15, 71-84. JANIS,I. L., & LEVENTHAL, H. Human reactions to stress. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert
306
S. LYSONSKI & J. C. ANDREWS
(Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1968. Pp. 1041-1085. KAHN, R. L., WOLFE,D. M., Q ~ NR., P., SNOCK,J. D., & ROSENTHAL, R. A. Organizational sfress. New York: Wiley, 1964. KELLER, R. T. Role conflict and ambiguity: correlates with job satisfaction and values. Personnel Psychology, 1975, 28, 57-64. LYONS,T. Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension and withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 99-110. LYSONSKI, S. Behavioral effects of boundary spanning on the product manager. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 1982, 48, 242-245. LYSONSKI,S. A boundary theory investigation of the product manager's role. Journal of Marketing, 1985, 49, 26-40. MCGRATH,J. E. Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1976. MILES, R. H . Role conflict and ambiguity in boundary and internal roles: a field stud using role-set analysis and a panel design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. o Y ~ o r t h Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1974. MILES, R. H . An empirical test of causal inference between role perceptions of conflict and ambiguity and various personal outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 60, 334-339.
NIJNNWY,J. C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. PRUDEN,H. O., & REESE,R. Interorganizational role-set relations and the performance and satisfaction of industrial salesmen. Administrative Science Quartdy, 1972, 17, 601-609. P m , D. L. A,, & AULD. H D The self-rating as a measure of employee satisfactoriness. Occupational Psychology, 1965, 39, 103-113. Q ~ NR., P.,& SHEPARD. L ] The 1972-1973 quality of employment survy:,descriptive statistics with comparison data from the 1369-1970 survq of working con zhons. Ann Arbor, MI: The Institute for Social Research, 1974. RIZZO,J., HOUSE,R., & LIRTZMAN, S. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 150-163. SCHULER, R. S. An integrative transactional process model of stress in organizations. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 1982, 3, 5-19. SCHULER, R. S., ALDAG, R. J., & B w , A. l? Role conflict and ambiguity: a scale analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 16, 111-128. TAYLOR, J. A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 285-290.
TEAS,R. K. Su ervisory behavior, role stress, and job satisfaction of industrial salespeople. Journal or~arketingResearch, 1983, 20, 84-91. VANSELL, M., BRIEF, A. P, & SCHWLER, R. S. Role conflict and role ambiguity: integration of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relntions, 1981, 34, 43-71. Accepted January 24, 1990.
