Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice Copyright 2002 by the Educational Publishing Foundation

2002, Vol. 6, No. 3, 229 242 1089-2699/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//1089-2699.6.3.229

Role Ambiguity, Role Efficacy, and Role Performance:

Multidimensional and Mediational Relationships Within
Interdependent Sport Teams

Mark R. Beauchamp Steven R. Bray

University of Birmingham University of Lethbridge

Mark A. Eys and Albert V. Carron

University of Western Ontario

Male secondary school rugby players (N 271) participated in a study examining role
ambiguity, role efficacy, and role performance. A multidimensional measure was used
to assess 4 manifestations of role ambiguity in offensive and defensive contexts.
Multiple role ambiguity dimensions explained variance in efficacy and performance.
Consistent with theorizing by A. Bandura (1997) and R. L. Kahn, D. M. Wolfe, R. P.
Quinn, J. D. Snoek, and R. A. Rosenthal (1964), negative relationships observed
between role ambiguity and role performance were mediated by competence (role
efficacy) beliefs. Findings support the multidimensional operationalization of role
ambiguity and role efficacy as a generative mechanism through which role ambiguity
can affect role performance.

Role ambiguity refers to a lack of clear infor-
mation associated with a particular role (Kahn,
Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). A
large body of research evidence indicates role
ambiguity may have problematic consequences
for role occupants. For example, within the or-
ganizational domain, research has found role
ambiguity to be consistently associated with
negative affect (e.g., Lagace, 1988; Terry,
Nielsen, & Perchard, 1993) and impaired per-
formance (e.g., Bauer & Green, 1994; Sohi,
Smith, & Ford, 1996; Szilagyi, 1977; Williams,
Podsakoff, & Huber, 1992) among employees.
Although role ambiguity has been associated
with various negative outcomes within organi-
zations, Kahn et al. (1964) theorized that it
Mark R. Beauchamp, School of Sport and Exercise Sci-
ences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England;
Steven R. Bray, Department of Kinesiology and Physical
Education, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta,
Canada; Mark A. Eys and Albert V. Carron, School of
Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, Toronto, On-
tario, Canada.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Mark R. Beauchamp, who is now at the
Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of
Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom. E-mail:
mrbeauchamp@hotmail.com
229
should be particularly dysfunctional in situa-
tions where individual roles are characterized
by a high degree of interdependence. That is,
when role occupants responsibilities are inter-
woven with those of other individuals in an
organizational system, the impact of role ambi-
guity on the role occupant personally should be
more problematic compared with when role oc-
cupants function more or less independently of
others. Furthermore, in situations characterized
by interdependence of roles, ambiguity could be
predicted to influence the thoughts and behav-
iors of both the role occupant and the other
individuals (e.g., group members) with whom
he or she interacts (Forsyth, 1999). Indeed,
Kahn et al. (1964) provided an illustration of
this point in their role episode model when they
observed that change in any one part of the
[role] system creates changes in other parts as
well . . . ambiguity in many parts of the organi-
zation are almost inevitably the outcome (pp.
76 77).
It is interesting to note that despite the fact
that research has focused extensively on role
ambiguity and its correlates within generic
work roles (e.g., Berkowitz, 1980; Organ &
Green, 1981) few studies have examined role
ambiguity within the interdependent group con-
230 BEAUCHAMP, BRAY, EYS, AND CARRON
text. Given the pervasiveness of groups that
have task interdependence as a fundamental fea-
ture (e.g., projects teams, service groups, and
sport teams), research aimed at examining the
extent to which role ambiguity perceptions af-
fect role occupants cognitions and behaviors is
particularly salient. Thus, one general focus of
our study was to examine role ambiguity and
cognitive and behavioral correlates within inter-
dependent teams. A second general focus was to
establish a conceptually sound protocol for as-
sessing role ambiguity. Insofar as this second
purpose is concerned, the present study builds
on recent efforts to examine role ambiguity in
sport teams.
In one study, Beauchamp and Bray (2001)
examined role ambiguity as well as role conflict
perceptions among elite university athletes from
a cross-section of interdependent team sports
(e.g., basketball, rugby, and soccer). Results
indicated that athletes who reported greater lev-
els of role ambiguity and role conflict had lower
levels of efficacy with regard to performing
their primary role responsibilities. Furthermore,
consistent with theorizing by Kahn et al. (1964),
the relationship between role conflict and role
efficacy was mediated by role ambiguity.
In another study, Eys and Carron (2001) in-
vestigated the relationship between role ambi-
guity and both task cohesion and task self-
efficacy within six university basketball teams.
It was found that individuals who were unclear
about their role responsibilities perceived their
team to be less integrated in terms of its task
approach to team play and reported lower levels
of attraction to the team. In addition, consistent
with the findings of Beauchamp and Bray
(2001), individuals who reported greater ambi-
guity were less efficacious about performing
tasks associated with their responsibilities on
the team.
In addition to identifying important correlates
of role ambiguity, the Beauchamp and Bray
(2001) and Eys and Carron (2001) studies also
made a potentially important contribution to the
study of the construct through the operational
definitions they used. Despite theoretical argu-
ments that role ambiguity should be conceptu-
alized and measured multidimensionally (Kahn
et al., 1964; King & King, 1990), researchers
have traditionally assessed it as a unidimen-
sional construct (e.g., Rizzo, House, & Lirtz-
man, 1970). A unidimensional approach to
measuring role ambiguity is not only inconsis-
tent with theory, it has minimal utility in terms
of its potential application. For example, King
and King (1990) criticized unidimensional ap-
proaches to measurement on the grounds that
they elicit little knowledge about the myriad
types of ambiguity role occupants might expe-
rience and that they provide limited information
to help guide intervention.
Although Beauchamp and Bray (2001) and
Eys and Carron (2001) both assessed role am-
biguity as a multidimensional construct, two
markedly different approaches were taken.
Beauchamp and Bray, using the work of
Rhoads, Singh, and Goodell (1994) and Singh
(1993) as their basis, measured role ambiguity
in terms of the major behavioral contexts in
which sport team members have formal role-
related responsibilities. In sports, the major con-
texts are related to offense and defense.
Beauchamp and Brays results supported their
proposition that these two contexts formed def-
inite distinguishable dimensions of team play
for each team member, as role ambiguity per-
ceptions were found to differentiate across
contexts.
In contrast, Eys and Carron (2001), using the
Kahn et al. (1964) theoretical model as their
basis, operationalized role ambiguity as a mul-
tidimensional construct composed of ambiguity
about (a) the scope of responsibilities, (b) the
behaviors necessary to carry out those respon-
sibilities, (c) how role responsibilities are eval-
uated, and (d) the consequences of not fulfilling
role responsibilities. Consistent with theory,
their results showed differential patterns of pre-
diction across the various forms of ambiguity
relating to task cohesion as well as task
self-efficacy.
In combination, the findings of Beauchamp
and Bray (2001) and Eys and Carron (2001)
provide initial support for the multidimension-
ality of role ambiguity within the interdepen-
dent sport team context. However, limitations
and strengths to both approaches should be
noted. One limitation of the Beauchamp and
Bray measure is that it did not represent multi-
dimensional role ambiguity as theorized by
Kahn et al. (1964). In short, although multidi-
mensionality was supported, their approach
lacked the theory that provided the basis for the
Eys and Carron approach. Conversely, a limita-
tion of the Eys and Carron measure was that it
 ROLE AMBIGUITY
failed to differentiate among the various con-
texts (i.e., offense and defense) in which the
four manifestations of role ambiguity (i.e.,
scope of responsibilities, etc.) might be experi-
enced. Specifically, in the Eys and Carron mea-
sure, questions in the scales representing each
of the four manifestations of ambiguity focused
on 10 broad contexts that included members
offensive responsibilities, defensive responsi-
bilities, leadership responsibilities, and respon-
sibilities to organize functions for teammates.
With such an approach, there is a risk that
important information will be overlooked. For
example, an individual may be quite clear about
his or her scope of role responsibilities for of-
fense but be unclear about his or her responsi-
bilities for team leadership, defense, and so
forth. As a consequence, the average score re-
flecting scope of responsibilities would not cap-
ture the differences in ambiguity across differ-
ent contexts.
Given the limitations associated with both
approaches, it is clear that neither the Beau-
champ and Bray (2001) nor the Eys and Carron
(2001) measure is fully satisfactory. However,
the two approaches are highly complementary,
and their strengths should also be highlighted.
Specifically, Beauchamp and Bray provided a
measure that taps the two major contexts in
which all interdependent sport team members
have formal roles, namely offense and defense.
The Eys and Carron approach, on the other
hand, taps four theory-driven dimensions across
which role ambiguity can be manifested. Thus,
in the present study a preliminary attempt was
made to develop a multidimensional measure of
role ambiguity that combined the strengths of
both approaches.
To guide the instrument development pro-
cess, we considered four fundamental role-re-
lated issues. First, role ambiguity was theorized
to encompass both subjective and objective
components (Kahn et al., 1964). However, con-
sistent with the majority of published role am-
biguity research (cf. Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler,
1981), our attempt to assess role ambiguity was
limited to subjective ambiguity (i.e., the percep-
tion of role ambiguity held by a particular
person).
Second, roles can also be formal or informal
(Mabry & Barnes, 1980). Informal roles de-
velop through processes of interpersonal inter-
action within the group. They can include roles
231
such as team clown, social facilitator, or moti-
vator (Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). Formal
roles are directly prescribed to group members,
which in the sport team setting encompass spe-
cific task-related behaviors determined by the
teams coach (Bray, 1998; Carron & Hausen-
blas, 1998). Because formal roles dictate the
task-related responsibilities that are directly as-
sociated with task performance (e.g., mastery of
specific maneuvers), only formal roles were
assessed.
Third, different types of formal roles may
exist (e.g., offense, defense, and leadership).
However, as offense and defense form the ma-
jor behavioral contexts in which all members of
interdependent sport teams have formal roles,
we limited our measure to these two specific
contexts. That is, we did not seek to assess
formal roles associated with group-related re-
sponsibilities such as leadership (e.g., team cap-
tain) or social organization (e.g., team social
secretary).
Finally, the measure focused on the four
manifestations of ambiguity identified by Eys
and Carron (2001): scope of responsibilities,
role behaviors, role evaluation, and role conse-
quences. Scope of responsibilities refers to a
lack of clear information about the breadth of
ones responsibilities. Role behaviors refer to a
lack of clear information about the behaviors
associated with ones role. Role evaluation re-
fers to a lack of clear information about how
ones responsibilities are evaluated. Role con-
sequences refer to a lack of clear information
about the consequences of a failure to fulfill
ones role responsibilities.
The general purpose of the present study was
to examine correlates of role involvement in a
team sport characterized by a high degree of
interdependence (i.e., rugby). Strong theoretical
and empirical bases led us to focus on four
specific questions. The first pertained to the
relationship between role ambiguity (using a
measure of the construct that was based on the
conceptual framework outlined above) and role
performance effectiveness. Previous meta-anal-
yses within the organizational domain (e.g.,
Abramis, 1994; Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jack-
son & Schuler, 1985) have found role ambiguity
to be negatively associated with performance.
However, in a more recent meta-analysis con-
ducted by Tubre and Collins (2000), the nega-
tive relationship between role ambiguity and
232 BEAUCHAMP, BRAY, EYS, AND CARRON
performance was found to be more pronounced
(i.e., a larger effect size was found) among
individuals whose roles were characterized by a
high degree of interdependence compared with
those whose role requirements were carried out
independently of others. Team sports such as
rugby involve dynamic team play in which
member roles are highly interdependent. Thus,
it was hypothesized that role performance
would be negatively associated with role
ambiguity.
The second research question concerned the
relationship between role ambiguity and role
efficacy. Role efficacy refers to a specific form
of self-efficacy relating to a team members
confidence in his or her capabilities to carry out
interdependent role functions (Bray, 1998; Bray
& Brawley, 2000). According to self-efficacy
theory (Bandura, 1997), information derived
enactively, vicariously, persuasively, or physi-
ologically is processed to develop beliefs of
personal efficacy. If an individual perceives a
lack of clear information in terms of what is
expected of him or her in order to effectively
carry out his or her role responsibilities, per-
sonal efficacy related to these role behaviors is
likely to suffer (Bandura, 1997; Kahn et al.,
1964). This proposition has been supported by
the findings of both Beauchamp and Bray
(2001) and Eys and Carron (2001). Thus, it was
hypothesized that role ambiguity would be neg-
atively associated with role-related efficacy.
The first two research questions acknowledge
the potential relationships between role ambi-
guity and both role performance and efficacy,
respectively. The third research question in-
volved an examination of the relationship be-
tween the latter two constructs. According to
self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), decre-
ments in personal efficacy are likely to be pre-
dictive of decrements in performance. In their
recent review of the efficacy literature in sports,
Feltz and Chase (1998) found support for this
proposition in that higher self-efficacy was con-
sistently associated with more positive perfor-
mance. Thus, it was hypothesized that role ef-
ficacy would be positively associated with role
performance in the present study.
Drawing from theory (Bandura, 1997; Kahn
et al., 1964), the bivariate interrelationships pro-
posed between role ambiguity, role perfor-
mance, and role efficacy led to an additional
research question, namely, the triadic interrela-
tionships among the three constructs. Jackson
and Schuler (1985) theorized that role ambigu-
ity affects performance via the weakening of
motivation in terms of both effort-to-perfor-
mance and performance-to-reward expectan-
cies. According to Bandura (1997), efficacy ex-
pectations are motivational. Thus, role efficacy
represents a cognitive mechanism that may ac-
count for the relationship between role ambigu-
ity and role performance. Consistent with this
reasoning, we hypothesized that the relationship
between role ambiguity and role performance
would be mediated by role efficacy.
Method
Participants
Male secondary school rugby players (mean
age 15.38 years, SD 1.56; N 271)
representing 17 teams and head coaches repre-
senting 12 of those teams participated in the
study. Athletes had an average of 5.26 years
(SD 2.38) playing experience in competitive
rugby. The level of competition represented in
the sample was of a high standard, with many
athletes having played for county or divisional
representative teams. For example, as part of
their regular team engagement, participants
took part in structured practices 35 times per
week.
Measures
Identification of primary role responsibilities.
In order to have players focus on their primary
role responsibilities for offense and defense, we
used a three-stage process developed by Bray
and colleagues (Beauchamp & Bray, 2001;
Bray, 1998; Bray & Brawley, 2002). First, play-
ers were provided with a specific definition of
roles and were required to focus on their overall
role on their team. Second, players were asked
to differentiate specific offensive and defensive
role responsibilities within their overall role.
Instructions made clear that ones overall role
could be made up of several interdependent
responsibilities for offense and defense. Exam-
ples of specific role responsibilities from rugby
were also provided breaking the gain line off
set-piece plays, closing down space between
myself and my opponent and putting in a strong
tackle, et cetera. Finally, players were required
 ROLE AMBIGUITY 233

to provide written descriptions of their four
primary interdependent role responsibilities for
offense and defense, separately.
Role ambiguity. Using their primary offen-
sive and defensive role responsibilities as
frames of reference, athletes responded to a
battery of questions regarding the degree to
which they perceived that their responsibilities
were ambiguous. Role ambiguity was assessed
using two 20-item scales (i.e., one for offense
and one for defense) designed to assess the
degree of ambiguity and lack of clarity associ-
ated with (a) the scope of personal responsibil-
ities (5 items), (b) the behaviors necessary to
carry out those responsibilities (5 items), (c)
how performance associated with those respon-
sibilities is evaluated (5 items), and (d) the
consequences of a failure to successfully carry
out those responsibilities (5 items).
Content validity of each of these scales was
assessed ad hoc through a three-stage process.
First, on the basis of conceptual definitions pro-
vided by theory (Kahn et al., 1964), items were
developed that were believed to represent the
four manifestations of ambiguity identified by
Eys and Carron (2001). Second, elite athletes
(n 9), recreational athletes (n 6), and expe-
rienced coaches (n 4) from a variety of inter-
dependent sport teams reviewed and provided
feedback on the items, in terms of both wording
and content. Any items deemed awkwardly
worded were rephrased. Any items that held
little meaning for the athletes were reworded or
removed.
In Stage 3, the resulting pool of items was
submitted to five experts in the field of group
dynamics to further assess content validity.
Consistent with procedures outlined by Es-
tabrooks and Carron (2000), the following
criteria were used to incorporate the feedback
from the group dynamics experts. Items were
reworded or eliminated if they were judged
not to reflect the intended role ambiguity di-
mension. Items judged to be awkwardly
worded were removed from the content pool.
Items considered to possess jargon or com-
plex terminology were eliminated. Finally,
items considered to be almost identical in
content were removed. The final scales are
presented in the Appendix.
Athletes rated their agreement with each role
ambiguity statement on a 9-point Likert-type
scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 9
(strongly agree). Thus, higher scores reflected
greater clarity (i.e., lower ambiguity) and lower
scores reflected greater ambiguity (i.e., lower
clarity). Acceptable internal consistencies
(Cronbachs alpha) of greater than .78 were
recorded for each of the role ambiguity scales
(Nunnally, 1978). Internal consistencies for
each of the role ambiguity scales are reported in
Table 1.
Role efficacy. Role efficacy was assessed
using procedures outlined by Bray and col-
leagues (Beauchamp & Bray, 2001; Bray, 1998;
Bray & Brawley, 2002). For each of the four
offensive and four defensive primary role re-
sponsibilities identified in the role identification

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Multidimensional Role Ambiguity, Role Efficacy, and
Role Performance Effectiveness
Context and variable M SD Range
Offense
Scope of responsibilities 6.95 1.20 3.009.00 .79
Behavior 6.85 1.27 1.409.00 .83
Evaluation 6.50 1.52 1.809.00 .90
Consequences 7.24 1.23 2.009.00 .81
Role efficacy 73.50 14.54 10.00100.00
Role performance effectiveness 6.97 1.25 3.5010.00
Defense
Scope of responsibilities 7.08 1.28 2.609.00 .85
Behavior 6.99 1.33 1.499.00 .87
Evaluation 6.81 1.46 1.409.00 .90
Consequences 7.33 1.34 1.209.00 .85
Role efficacy 71.43 16.56 10.00100.00
Role performance effectiveness 6.68 1.34 3.5010.00
234 BEAUCHAMP, BRAY, EYS, AND CARRON
process, athletes rated their confidence in their
ability to perform that responsibility. Responses
were provided using a 0% (not at all confident)
to 100% (extremely confident) scale. The mean
score from each athletes (a) four-item defen-
sive role responsibility scale and (b) four-item
offensive role responsibility scale formed the
defensive role efficacy and offensive role effi-
cacy scores, respectively. Intraclass correlations
of .76 and .78 were obtained for the offensive
role efficacy and defensive role efficacy scales.
These correlations indicate a high degree of
within-subject consistency, thus giving support
for item aggregation.
Role performance effectiveness. The head
coaches from 12 of the 17 participating teams
(not all coaches participated) identified the four
primary role responsibilities that they expected
each of their athletes to perform for offense and
defense, separately. Once these role responsi-
bilities were identified, the coaches rated how
well each athlete was performing with regard to
each of these responsibilities at that stage in the
season. Responses were provided on an 11-
point scale anchored by 0 (very ineffective)
and 10 (very effective). Offensive and defensive
role performance effectiveness scores were cal-
culated from the means of the four defensive
items and four offensive items, respectively.
Intraclass correlations of .85 and .85 were re-
corded for the offensive and defensive rating
scales, indicating a high degree of internal con-
sistency among the respective offensive and
defensive item response sets.
Procedure
Participants were recruited by Mark R.
Beauchamp through initial contact with each
teams head coach. To provide time for players
formal interdependent role responsibilities to
become established, we administered the ques-
tionnaires approximately 1 month into the com-
petitive season during a 1-week period. Ques-
tionnaires were completed at a team meeting
that was neither immediately before nor imme-
diately after competition in order to avoid com-
petition-specific bias. The athletes were in-
formed of the voluntary nature of the study and
were assured of confidentiality, and both paren-
tal and participant consent was obtained. Coach
ratings of performance were obtained during the
same week, again at a time that was neither
immediately prior to nor immediately following
competition.
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Given that a newly developed inventory was
used to measure the four hypothesized dimen-
sions of role ambiguity, we conducted two con-
firmatory factor analyses for both offense and
defense to ensure that the items loaded on each
of the four factors as expected. In the present
study, a maximum likelihood method of estima-
tion was computed using AMOS (Version 4.0)
software (Arbuckle, 1999). As recommended
by Hu and Bentler (1995), several fit indices
were used to assess model fit. First, the chi-
square test was considered. A nonsignificant
chi-square is typically representative of a good
fitting model. For both offensive and defensive
models, the chi-square statistic was significant:
offense, 2(164, N 271) 420.91, p .001;
defense, 2(164, N 271) 347.42, p .001.
However, numerous authors have suggested
that a nonsignificant chi-square result is unreal-
istic (e.g., Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Joreskog,
1969) and consider the ratio between the chi-
square and the degrees of freedom to be a more
appropriate measure of model fit. Carmines and
McIver (1981) indicated that ratios in the range
of 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 are indicative of an acceptable
fit between the hypothetical model and the sam-
ple data (p. 80). In the present study, the ratios
obtained for both offensive (2/df 2.57) and
defensive (2/df 2.12) data indicated accept-
able model fit of less than 3 to 1.
In addition to the chi-square, several other
indices were used to assess model fit, including
the standardized root-mean-square residual
(SRMR), the comparative fit index (CFI), the
TuckerLewis index (TLI), and the root-mean-
square error of approximation (RMSEA). Re-
sults of both the offensive (SRMR .06;
CFI .92; TLI .91; RMSEA .08) and
defensive (SRMR .04; CFI .95; TLI .95;
RMSEA .06) models showed that the four-
factor solution provided an adequate fit to the
data. Collectively, these results indicate that the
role ambiguity instrument used in this study is a
good measure of the four hypothesized ambigu-
ity manifestations. However, it should be noted
that these results are restricted to the present
 ROLE AMBIGUITY 235

sample. Consequently, future research should

.36**
.32**
.35**

.31**
.73**

.26**

.37**
.19*
12

.04

.16
.17
examine the construct validity of the instrument
with participants from other sports, perfor-
mance levels, and age groups (cf. Carron &

.51**
.49**
.46**
.34**
.73**
.37**

.57**
.55**
.47**
.48**
Brawley, 2000).

11

Descriptive Statistics

.49**
.51**
.53**
.66**
.41**

.69**
.67**
.67**
10

.15
Descriptive statistics are presented in Ta-
ble 1. For both offense and defense, relatively
high mean scores were observed for all role

.58**
.61**
.76**
.52**
.41**

.74**
.75**
ambiguity dimensions (note that higher scores

.16
reflect greater clarity and less ambiguity). The

Intercorrelations Between Offensive and Defensive Role Ambiguity, Role Efficacy, and Role Performance Effectiveness
participants also reported relatively high levels
of role efficacy for both offense (M 73.50,

.62**
.75**
.62**
.55**
.44**

.83**
SD 14.54) and defense (M 71.43,

.17
SD 16.56). In addition, coach ratings re-
vealed that the athletes sampled were achieving

.67**
.66**
.61**
.55**
.49**
.25**
a moderately high level of success in perform-

7
ing both their offensive (M 6.97, SD 1.25)
and defensive (M 6.68, SD 1.34) role
responsibilities.
.44**
.34**
.30**

.39**
Bivariate correlations between the variables

are presented in Table 2. The correlations .03

showed a general trend toward higher levels of
role clarity (i.e., lower role ambiguity) being
.54**
.42**
.46**
.29**

5

associated with higher role efficacy scores (e.g.,

r .54 for the relationship between offensive
scope of responsibilities and offensive role ef-
ficacy) and higher role performance effective-
.53**
.50**
.54**

4

ness scores (e.g., r .44 for the relationship

between offensive scope of responsibilities and
offensive role performance).
.65**
.65**

3

Relationships Between Role Ambiguity

and Role Efficacy
.72**

2

Note. N 271; for role performance, N 135.

To determine the relationship between role

ambiguity and role efficacy, role efficacy was
regressed on the four role ambiguity dimensions

1

(Table 3). Separate multiple regression analyses

were carried out for the two contexts (i.e., of-
fense and defense). Assessment of both the vari-
1. Scope of responsibilities

7. Scope of responsibilities

ance inflation factors and the tolerance statistics

Context and variable

(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998) re-

6. Role performance

12. Role performance

* p .05. ** p .01.

vealed that multicollinearity was not at a level

4. Consequences

10. Consequences
5. Role efficacy

11. Role efficacy

to evoke concern (i.e., collinearity did not ex-

3. Evaluation

9. Evaluation
2. Behaviors

8. Behaviors

plain more than 10% of the variance in any

independent variable).
For offense, ambiguity related to scope of
Table 2

Defense
Offense

responsibilities was the primary predictor of

variance in role efficacy ( .43, p .001).
236 BEAUCHAMP, BRAY, EYS, AND CARRON

Role evaluation ambiguity was also signifi-

5.27***

2.80**

3.11**
cantly related to role efficacy in the model (

2.36*
0.02

0.64

0.10
1.80
t .21, p .01). The full model accounted for 30%
of the variance in offensive role efficacy (ad-
justed R2 .30), F(4, 264) 29.59, p .001.
A similar pattern of findings was obtained in
Adjusted R2

the defensive analysis. That is, ambiguity asso-

.30***

.34*** ciated with scope of responsibilities was the

major predictor of role efficacy ( .30, p
.01). However, in this analysis, role behavior
ambiguity also contributed to the explained
variance ( .22, p .05). The full model
.001

accounted for 34% of the variance in defensive

.43

.21
.04

.30
.22
.01
.13

role efficacy (adjusted R2 .34), F(4, 262)

35.83, p .001.
0.98
0.91
0.70
0.75

1.24
1.19
0.94
0.91
SEB

Relationship Between Role Ambiguity and

Role Performance Effectiveness
Although 271 athletes completed their ques-
5.16
0.01
1.96
0.48

3.87
2.81
0.09
1.65

tionnaires, 5 of the 17 teams head coaches were

B

either unable (2 were absent from school for 2

weeks because of illness) or chose not (n 3)
to provide ratings on role performance for their
Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Offensive and Defensive Role Efficacy

athletes (coach participation was voluntary). As

Defensive role ambiguity (complete model)
Offensive role ambiguity (complete model)

a consequence, coach ratings of role perfor-

mance were obtained for a subsample of the
athletes (n 135).
As was the case for the role efficacy analyses,
ratings of role performance were regressed on
Scope of responsibilities

Scope of responsibilities
Predictor

the four role ambiguity dimensions in separate

multiple regression analyses for offense and
defense (Table 4). For offense, ambiguity re-
Consequences

Consequences

lated to scope of responsibilities was the prin-

Evaluation

Evaluation
Behaviors

Behaviors

cipal predictor of role performance ( .41,

p .001), although role consequences ambigu-
ity also accounted for significant variance (
.20, p .05) in offensive role performance.
The full model accounted for 20% of the ex-
plained variance (adjusted R2 .20), F(4,
130) 9.55, p .001. In the defensive analy-
*** p .001.
Defensive role efficacy
Offensive role efficacy

sis, ambiguity related to scope of responsibili-

ties was the only significant predictor of role
Criterion

performance effectiveness ( .30, adjusted

R2 .05), F(4, 130) 2.63, p .05.
* p .05. ** p .01.

Relationship Between Role Efficacy and

Note. N 271.

Role Performance Effectiveness

Equation

To examine the relationship between role ef-

Table 3

ficacy and role performance, role performance

1

was regressed on role efficacy for both offense

 ROLE AMBIGUITY 237

and defense. For offensive role performance,

3.66***

2.31*

2.19*
role efficacy accounted for 15% of the variance

0.74
0.73

0.79
0.03
0.88
t (adjusted R2 .15), F(1, 133) 24.44, p
.001, whereas for defensive role performance,
role efficacy accounted for 13% of the variance
(adjusted R2 .13), F(1, 131) 20.53, p
Adjusted R2

.001.
.20***

.05*
Role Efficacy as a Mediator in the Role
AmbiguityRole Performance Relationship
In accordance with Baron and Kennys
.41
.09
.08
.20

.30
.11
.00
.09
(1986) prescription for testing mediation, linear

regression analyses were conducted to examine

role efficacy as a mediator of the relationship
between role ambiguity and performance. As
0.14
0.14
0.09
0.10

0.18
0.18
0.14
0.13
SEB

was the case above, separate analyses were con-

ducted for offense and defense. Baron and
Kenny suggested that first, the mediator should
Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Offensive and Defensive Role Performance Effectiveness

be regressed on the independent variable; sec-

0.51
0.11
0.07
0.23

0.39
0.14
0.00
0.11

ond, the dependent variable should be regressed

B

on the independent variable; and third, the de-

pendent variable should be hierarchically re-
gressed on the mediator and then the indepen-
Defensive role ambiguity (complete model)
Offensive role ambiguity (complete model)

dent variable.
Results of the defensive analyses are pre-
sented in Table 5. In the first equation, role
ambiguity accounted for significant variance
(adjusted R2 .22, p .001) in role efficacy. In
Scope of responsibilities

Scope of responsibilities
Predictor

the second equation, role ambiguity accounted

for significant variance (adjusted R2 .05, p
.05) in performance. Results of the third equa-
Consequences

Consequences

tion revealed that role efficacy accounted for

13% of the variance ( p .001) in role perfor-
Evaluation

Evaluation
Behaviors

Behaviors

mance. However, role ambiguity did not ac-

count for significant additional variance ( p
.05) in role performance beyond that accounted
for by role efficacy.
Results of the offensive analyses are also
presented in Table 5. In the first equation, role
Defensive role performance
Offensive role performance

ambiguity accounted for significant variance

(adjusted R2 .31, p .001) in role efficacy. In
the second equation, role ambiguity accounted
Criterion

for significant variance (adjusted R2 .20, p

.001) in role performance. In the third equation,
* p .05. *** p .001.

role efficacy explained 15% of the variance

( p .001) in role performance. After control-
ling for the effect of role efficacy, role ambigu-
Note. N 135.

ity also contributed an additional 8% of the

explained variance ( p .001) in role perfor-
Equation

mance. Thus, in both offensive and defensive

Table 4

analyses, mediation was supportedthe rela-

1

tionships between role ambiguity and role per-

238 BEAUCHAMP, BRAY, EYS, AND CARRON

Table 5
Mediational Analyses for Variables Predicting Offensive and Defensive Role Performance Effectiveness
Equation Criterion Predictor F df Adjusted R2
Defense
1 Role efficacy Role ambiguity (complete model) 10.32 (4, 128) .22***
2 Role performance Role ambiguity (complete model) 2.62 (4, 130) .05*
3 Role performance
Step 1 Role efficacy 20.53 (1, 131) .13***
Step 2 Role ambiguity (complete model) 4.88 (5, 127) .13
Offense
1 Role efficacy Role ambiguity (complete model) 15.87 (4, 130) .31***
2 Role performance Role ambiguity (complete model) 9.55 (4, 130) .20***
3 Role performance
Step 1 Role efficacy 24.44 (1, 133) .15***
Step 2 Role ambiguity (complete model) 9.19 (5, 129) .23***
Note. N 135. For Equation 3 of the defensive model, Step 2 R2 .00. For Equation 3 of the offensive model, Step 2
R2 .08.
* p .05. *** p .001.

formance were reduced substantially when the
effects of the mediator (role efficacy) were con-
trolled (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Discussion
The overall objective of this study was to
examine the relationships among role ambigu-
ity, role-related efficacy, and role performance
within an interdependent sport team setting. A
multidimensional, theoretically derived (cf.
Kahn et al., 1964) measure was developed to
assess four different manifestations of role am-
biguityscope of responsibilities, role behav-
iors, role evaluation, and role consequences
within two specific contexts: offense and de-
fense. Furthermore, a mediational model was
proposed to test the assertion that role efficacy
beliefs are a mechanism through which role
ambiguity influences role performance.
Theorizing by Kahn et al. (1964) and re-
search from the organizational domain (Tubre
& Collins, 2000) contribute to the suggestion
that ambiguity should be particularly detrimen-
tal to performance in situations where an indi-
viduals role is characterized by high interde-
pendence. Although previous research has ex-
amined ambiguity within generic work roles
(e.g., managerial, administrative), our study
represents a first step toward investigating the
relationship between role ambiguity and perfor-
mance within the context of interdependent
sport teams.
Consistent with our hypotheses, role ambigu-
ity was found to be negatively associated with
role performance. That is, for both offense and
defense, higher ambiguity scores were associ-
ated with lower coach ratings of athlete perfor-
mance. Ambiguity associated with scope of re-
sponsibilities was the major predictor of offen-
sive and defensive role performance, although
ambiguity related to role consequences also ac-
counted for significant variance in offensive
role performance. A possible explanation for
the fact that ambiguity related to scope of re-
sponsibilities was the principal predictor of role
performance for both offense and defense might
be that when individuals are unclear about their
various responsibilities, they may engage in in-
appropriate task-related strategies. In fact, am-
biguity concerning scope of responsibilities can
even have a detrimental effect on individuals
capable of efficient role performance. As Jack-
son and Schuler (1985) noted, regardless of
effort expenditure, the behaviors of such indi-
viduals are most likely to be inefficient, mis-
directed or insufficient (p. 43).
Ambiguity concerning scope of responsibili-
ties was also the major predictor of role efficacy
for both offense and defense. Of interest, Eys
and Carron (2001) found that scope of respon-
sibilities was predictive of task self-efficacy for
defensive role responsibilities among a sample
of elite university basketball players. However,
our results showed that in addition to ambiguity
related to scope of responsibilities, two further
 ROLE AMBIGUITY
manifestations of role ambiguity were also pre-
dictive of role efficacy. Specifically, for offen-
sive play, role evaluation ambiguity was asso-
ciated with role efficacy, a finding that is also
consistent with Eys and Carrons. Furthermore,
role behavior ambiguity was predictive of role
efficacy for defensive responsibilities.
The fact that role evaluation ambiguity was
associated with offensive role efficacy and that
role behavior ambiguity was associated with
defensive role efficacy may help to illustrate
how various forms of role ambiguity can be
manifested in the differential role requirements
placed on members for offense and defense in
rugby. For example, Escart and Guzman
(1999) indicated that effective feedback is es-
sential for the maintenance of personal efficacy.
For offensive play, rugby players are required to
carry out a number of responsibilities (e.g., set
plays and counterattacks). If members are not
clear as to how these different responsibilities
are evaluated, appropriate feedback necessary
to the maintenance of personal efficacy may be
absent. Thus, consistent with theory (Bandura,
1997), lower levels of role-related efficacy will
be likely. In contrast to offense, when playing
defense, rugby players may be required to carry
out a smaller spectrum of responsibilities. How-
ever, if they are unclear about the behaviors
involved in carrying out these responsibilities
(e.g., how to tackle), they may doubt their ca-
pabilities to carry out those responsibilities
(e.g., The opposition are bound to expose my
defensive weaknesses) and so lower levels of
role efficacy will result. When this is considered
in concert with the ambiguityperformance
findings, it is clear that when individuals fail to
understand the breadth of their different role
responsibilities, both performance and per-
ceived capabilities to perform suffer.
Previous research from the sport setting has
consistently demonstrated a positive relation-
ship between personal efficacy and competitive
performance (e.g., George, 1994; Lee, 1982;
Treasure, Monson, & Lox, 1996). Although the
aforementioned research has focused mainly on
individuals performing sport tasks indepen-
dently and not interdependently with team-
mates, recent research by Bray and Brawley
(2000, 2002) also found a positive relationship
between role efficacy and role performance in
collegiate basketball. Thus, consistent with the-
orizing by Bandura (1997) and past research
239
examining the efficacyperformance relation-
ship in both independent and interdependent
sport tasks, our results support the hypothesized
positive relationship between role efficacy and
role performance in an interdependent team
setting.
Baron and Kenny (1986) defined a mediator
as the generative mechanism through which
the focal independent variable is able to influ-
ence the dependent variable of interest (p.
1173). Although the association between ambi-
guity and performance has been proposed by
theory and supported by empirical research, lit-
tle effort has been made to account for theorized
mediators through which ambiguity may affect
performance. The current findings provide evi-
dence of such a mechanism in the form of role
efficacy. That is, role efficacy was found to be a
mediator of the role ambiguityperformance re-
lationship for both offense and defense. The
mediational interpretation of these relationships
supports Jackson and Schulers (1985) theoriz-
ing that role ambiguity seems to have motiva-
tional implications for the individual role occu-
pant. Results are consistent with the interpreta-
tion that a lack of clarity regarding role
responsibilities may be further manifested in
beleaguered thoughts about capabilities to
perform effectively, which in turn affect
performance.
Although role efficacy fully mediated the re-
lationship between role ambiguity and perfor-
mance for defense (i.e., it accounted for all of
the variance in performance), for offense, par-
tial mediation was observed (i.e., role efficacy
accounted for some, but not all of the variance
in offensive performance previously explained
by role ambiguity). Thus, additional mediators
may also be present in the latter relationship
(Baron & Kenny, 1986). Jackson and Schuler
(1985) suggested that role ambiguity may lead
to impairments in performance through both
cognitive and motivational mechanisms. Future
research should explore other possible mecha-
nisms that may explain how role ambiguity
affects performance.
Although this study represents a promising
start to examining the relationships between
multidimensional role ambiguity, role efficacy,
and performance within the interdependent
sport team context, a number of limitations
should be noted. The homogeneous nature of
the sample (i.e., male secondary-school rugby
240 BEAUCHAMP, BRAY, EYS, AND CARRON
players) means that the results cannot be gen-
eralized to other teams, such as university, elite,
recreational, or those made up of female ath-
letes. Indeed, future research should seek to
examine teams from a variety of sports and
levels, as well as female teams. Our role per-
formance measure might also be considered a
limitation in that it was operationalized through
coaches subjective rating of role effectiveness
(and, therefore, was subject to bias). One
strength, however, was that consistent with the
recommendations of Bandura (1997), the mea-
sure of performance was intended to represent a
high degree of contextual congruence with the
specific form of efficacy being assessed. We
saw no valid way to assess role performance
objectively; this represents a challenge for fu-
ture researchers. In addition, although the re-
sults of this study point toward a potential
mechanism (i.e., role efficacy) through which
role ambiguity may affect performance, causa-
tion cannot be inferred from the concurrent na-
ture of the research design. Indeed, future re-
search should incorporate both experimental
and longitudinal designs to test for such causal
relationships (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Balanced against the aforementioned limita-
tions, however, is the fact that the study does
make a contribution to theory. That is, support
is provided here for a theory-driven multidi-
mensional conceptualization of role ambiguity
that allows researchers to tap different types of
role ambiguity perceptions held by members of
interdependent groups. Furthermore, although a
number of studies from the organizational do-
main have provided evidence for a negative
relationship between role ambiguity and perfor-
mance, our study points toward a mediational
mechanism (role efficacy) that may explain how
role ambiguity affects performance.
The fact that all four manifestations of ambi-
guity were predictive of role efficacy and role
performance across the different contexts of
offense and defense also has practical implica-
tions. Group leaders should be made aware of
the different types of ambiguity and how they
are perceived by interdependent group mem-
bers. Ensuring that group members understand
their scope of responsibilities, how these re-
sponsibilities are to be enacted, and how they
are to be evaluated, as well as the costs and
benefits of unsuccessful and successful role per-
formance, will ensure that efficacy is nurtured
and that performance benefits. By failing to do
so, group leaders risk that their subordinates
will be ill equipped to perform to their best.
Although ambiguity related to scope of re-
sponsibilities was the construct most highly as-
sociated with impaired performance and lower
levels of role efficacy, future research should
also examine potential dependent variables that
might be associated with the socioemotional
aspects of ambiguity. Given the socioemotional
nature of both role consequences and role eval-
uation ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964), it is pos-
sible that these manifestations of ambiguity will
significantly influence affective variables such
as role satisfaction and role commitment to a
greater extent than other forms of ambiguity
(e.g., role behaviors). Another important area
for future research is the relationship between
ambiguity and group (collective) performance.
Indeed, if group leaders are particularly poor at
conveying to their subordinates what is ex-
pected, not only is it likely that group members
will be unclear about how to perform specific
systems, but collective performances will also
be affected.
In conclusion, the present study provides pre-
liminary evidence for the multidimensional
conceptualization of role ambiguity used in this
study. Furthermore, the results provide evi-
dence for a mechanism (i.e., role efficacy)
through which role ambiguity may affect role
performance. Future research should continue
to use this multidimensional approach to mea-
surement and should seek to examine role am-
biguity within interdependent groups across a
variety of ages, competitive or organizational
levels, and contexts.
References
Abramis, D. J. (1994). Work role ambiguity, job satis-
faction, and job performance: Meta-analysis and re-
view. Psychological Reports, 75, 14111433.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). AMOS (Version 4.0) [Com-
puter software]. Chicago: SmallWaters.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of
control. New York: Freeman.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The modera-
tormediator variable distinction in social psycho-
logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statis-
tical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1994). Effect of new-
comer involvement in work-related activities: A
 ROLE AMBIGUITY
longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 79, 211223.
Beauchamp, M. R., & Bray, S. R. (2001). Role am-
biguity and role conflict within interdependent
teams. Small Group Research, 32, 133157.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance
tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covari-
ance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588
606.
Berkowitz, E. N. (1980). Role theory, attitudinal con-
structs, and actual performance: A measurement
issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 240
245.
Bray, S. R. (1998). Role efficacy within interdepen-
dent teams: Measurement development and tests of
theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Bray, S. R., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Role efficacy
and perceived role performance relationships:
Longitudinal evidence for reciprocality. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22(Suppl.), S22.
Bray, S. R., & Brawley, L. R. (2002). Role clarity,
role efficacy, and role performance effectiveness.
Small Group Research, 33, 245265.
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing
models with unobserved variables: Analysis of co-
variance structures. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F.
Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current is-
sues (pp. 65115). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion:
Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group
Research, 31, 89 106.
Carron, A. V., & Hausenblas, H. (1998). Group dy-
namics in sport (2nd ed). Morgantown, WV: Fit-
ness Information Technology.
Escart, A., & Guzman, J. (1999). Effects of feedback
on self-efficacy, performance, and choice in an
athletic task. Journal of Applied Sport Psychol-
ogy, 11, 8396.
Estabrooks, P. A., & Carron, A. V. (2000). The
physical activity group environment questionnaire:
An instrument for the assessment of cohesion in
exercise classes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Re-
search, and Practice, 4, 230 243.
Eys, M., & Carron, A. V. (2001). Role ambiguity,
task cohesion, and task self-efficacy. Small Group
Research, 32, 356 373.
Feltz, D. L., & Chase, M. A. (1998). The measure-
ment of self-efficacy and confidence in sport. In
J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise
psychology measurement (pp. 65 80). Morgan-
town, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis
of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320 333.
Forsyth, D. R. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
241
George, T. R. (1994). Self-confidence and basketball
performance: A causal examination. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 381399.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black,
W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit.
In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation model-
ing: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76
99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-
analysis and conceptual critique of research on role
ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 36, 16 78.
Joreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to con-
firmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 34, 183202.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D.,
& Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress:
Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York:
Wiley.
King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Role conflict and
role ambiguity: A critical assessment of construct
validity. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 48 64.
Lagace, R. R. (1988). Role-stress differences be-
tween salesmen and saleswomen: Effect of job
satisfaction and performance. Psychological Re-
ports, 62, 815 825.
Lee, C. (1982). Self-efficacy as a predictor of perfor-
mance in competitive gymnastics. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 4, 405 409.
Mabry, E. A., & Barnes, R. E. (1980). The dynamics
of small group communication. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ, D. W., & Green, C. N. (1981). The effects of
formalization on professional involvement: A
compensatory process approach. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 26, 237252.
Rhoads, G. K., Singh, J., & Goodell, P. W. (1994).
The multiple dimensions of role ambiguity and
their impact upon psychological and behavioral
outcomes of industrial salespeople. Journal of Per-
sonal Selling and Sales Management, 14, 124.
Rizzo, J., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role
conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150 163.
Singh, J. (1993). Boundary role ambiguity: Facets,
determinants, and impacts. Journal of Market-
ing, 57, 1131.
Sohi, R. S., Smith, D. C., & Ford, N. M. (1996). How
does sharing a sales force between multiple divi-
sions affect salespeople? Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 24, 195207.
Szilagyi, A. D. (1977). An empirical test of causal in-
ference between role perceptions, satisfaction with
242 BEAUCHAMP, BRAY, EYS, AND CARRON
work, performance and organization level. Person-
nel Psychology, 30, 375388.
Terry, D. J., Nielsen, M., & Perchard, L. (1993). Effects
of work stress on psychological well-being and job
satisfaction: The stress buffering role of social sup-
port. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 168 175.
Treasure, D. C., Monson, J., & Lox, C. L. (1996).
Relationship between self-efficacy, wrestling
performance, and affect prior to competition. Sport
Psychologist, 10, 73 83.
Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler
(1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships
Appendix
Role Ambiguity Scale
Items were worded with reference to the specific
contexts measured (e.g., offense: I understand the
scope of my offensive responsibilities). (R) indicates
items that were reverse scored.
Ambiguity Related to Scope of Responsibilities
I understand the extent of my responsibilities
I understand the scope of my responsibilities
I understand all of my responsibilities.
I am unclear about the breadth of my responsibil-
ities. (R)
I am clear about the different responsibilities that
make up my role.
Role Behavior Ambiguity
I understand what adjustments to my behavior
need to be made to carry out my role.
I understand the behaviors I must perform to carry
out my role.
I know what behaviors are necessary to carry out
my responsibilities.
It is clear what behaviors I should perform to fulfill
my role.
I am unclear what behaviors are expected of me in
order to carry out my role. (R)
between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job perfor-
mance. Journal of Management, 26, 155169.
Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981).
Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of the
literature and directions for future research. Hu-
man Relations, 34, 4371.
Williams, M. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Huber, V.
(1992). Effects of group-level and individual
level variation in leader behaviors on subordi-
nate attitudes and performance. Journal of Oc-
cupational and Organizational Psychology, 65,
115129.
Role Evaluation Ambiguity
I understand the criteria by which my role respon-
sibilities are evaluated.
I understand how my role is evaluated.
It is clear to me how my role responsibilities are
evaluated
I am unclear about the way in which my offensive
role responses are evaluated. (R)
The criteria by which my offensive role is evalu-
ated are clear to me.
Role Consequences Ambiguity
It is clear to me what happens if I fail to carry out
my role responsibilities.
I understand the consequences of failing to carry
out my role responsibilities.
I am unclear about the consequences of failing to
carry out my role responsibilities. (R)
I understand the consequences of unsuccessful role
performance.
I know what will happen if I dont perform my role
responsibilities.
Received April 23, 2001
Revision received March 19, 2002
Accepted March 19, 2002