Goal and Process Clarity: Specification of Multiple Constructs of Role Ambiguity and a Structural Equation Model of Their Antecedents and Consequences

Transcription

1 Journal of Applied Psychology 1992, Vol. 77. No. 2, Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, inc /92/53.00 Goal and Process Clarity: Specification of Multiple Constructs of Role Ambiguity and a Structural Equation Model of Their Antecedents and Consequences John E. Sawyer College of Business and Economics University of Delaware Measures of 2 constructs of role ambiguity (process and goal clarity) were developed. Mental health workers (N = 402) from 2 organizations provided evidence that a confirmatory 2-factor model fit the data better than a 1 -factor model. A path model including antecedents (autonomy, job feedback, agent feedback, recognition) and consequences (job satisfaction, job search behavior, turnover) of process and goal clarity was proposed based on the model of role ambiguity developed by Bedeian and Armenakis (1981) and modified in light of evidence on role ambiguity reviewed by Fisher and Gitelson (1983) and Jackson and Schuler (1985). A structural equation model confirmed the fit of the hypothesized model and a slightly more restricted model. Job tenure, need for clarity, and job classification were investigated as moderators but did not moderate the structural paths of the model. In this article, I present a reconceptualization of the role ambiguity construct that includes multiple constructs. The specific constructs are (a) the extent to which the individual's work goals and responsibilities are clearly communicated and (b) the degree to which the individual understands the processes required to achieve those goals. New measures of these two constructs are proposed, along with empirical evidence to support them. A nomological network of constructs, found by previous researchers to function as antecedents and consequences of role ambiguity, is proposed and tested in a structural equation model using the measures of goal and process clarity developed in this research. Finally, three variables proposed by previous researchers to be moderators of the ambiguity-satisfaction relationship are tested within the context of the structural model. Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964) summarized much of the research on role conflict and ambiguity and elaborated a theory of role dynamics that included their roleepisode model. To adequately perform his or her role, a person Support for this research was provided in part by a grant from the Technology and Society Division of the Texas Engineering Experiment Station and in part by a grant from the Institute for Innovation and Design in Engineering, Texas Engineering Experiment Station. This research was conducted while I was on the faculty at Texas A&M University. I express appreciation to Texas A&M University for supporting this research and to Susan Shackelford and Larry Weiss, who assisted in the early development of the goal and process clarity measures. Gratitude is also extended to Jerry Griffith and to three anonymous reviewers of a previous version of the article for their comments and careful review. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John E. Sawyer, Department of Business Administration, College of Business and Economics, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware must know (a) what the expectations of the role set are (e.g., rights, duties, and responsibilities), (b) what activities will fulfill the role responsibilities (means-ends knowledge), and (c) what the consequences of role performance are to self, others, and the organization (Kahn et al., 1964). Ambiguity may result when the three types of information do not exist or when they are inadequately communicated. Experienced role ambiguity reflects the way an individual internalizes, perceives, and interprets objective ambiguity in the role context. For their own work, Kahn et al. (1964) developed an overall ambiguity index that included the employee's understanding of what to do on the job, limits of authority, and the extent to which role senders communicate role expectations. Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) developed a measure of role conflict and ambiguity that subsequently became the standard for many studies. They denned role ambiguity as "(1) the predictability of the outcome or responses to one's behavior... and (2) the existence of clarity of behavioral requirements... which would serve to guide behavior" (Rizzo et al., 1970, pp ). After factor analysis and scale reduction procedures were completed, the six items subsequently chosen to reflect the ambiguity construct contained none of the items designed to measure predictability of outcome or responses to the worker's behavior. Compared with Kahn et al.'s (1964) three types of role ambiguity, five of the six items Rizzo et al. (1970) chose to represent role ambiguity concern rights, duties, and responsibilities, and only one reflects the means-ends type of ambiguity. King and King (1990) argued that the items in Rizzo et al.'s measure were most consistent with a task definition of ambiguity but failed to distinguish between job requirements (goals and responsibilities) and how those requirements are to be met (processes or behaviors). King and King also argued that two of the items were missing context and that a third item confounds ambiguity with a self-evaluation of ability to time 130

2 GOAL AND PROCESS CLARITY 131 manage. Thus, Rizzo et al.'s ambiguity scale falls far short of measuring the two aspects of role ambiguity defined by them, or the three types of ambiguity defined by Kahn et al. (1964). Although Rizzo et al.'s (1970) scale has become the most widely used measure of role conflict and ambiguity, it has come under criticism (King & King, 1990; McGee, Ferguson, & Seers, 1989; Tracy & Johnson, 1981). Although Schuler, Aldag, and Brief (1977) supported the two-factor structure of Rizzo et al.'s measure and its construct validity, Tracy and Johnson (1981) challenged it, noting that the intended meaning of the scales was totally confounded with the negative versus positive wording of the items. They also showed that more variance in factor loadings of the original 29 items could be accounted for by the stress-versus-comfort wording of the items than by the conflict and ambiguity constructs. In addition, a confirmatory factor analysis testing three competing models (McGee et al., 1989) supported a model in which all 14 of Rizzo et al.'s items loaded on a single first-order factor (role stress); the 6 negatively keyed ambiguity items loaded on a second-order factor. Because of the complete confound of positive wording with ambiguity items, it is impossible to determine if the second-order factor should be interpreted as ambiguity or merely as an artifact of the wording. In an attempt to further test the hypothesis of a single underlying construct of role stress advanced by McGee et al. (1989), Kelloway and Barling (1990) administered Rizzo et al.'s (1970) role conflict and role ambiguity scales, along with a role stress scale. They tested one-, two-, and three-factor models. The three-factor model best fit the data, supporting the construct distinction between the three scales. However, Kelloway and Barling (1990) called for continued development and improvement of Rizzo et al.'s scales and cautioned researchers about the possible confound of the positive and negative wording with the role conflict and ambiguity scales. House, Schuler, and Levanoni (1983) constructed a new set of items to balance the positive and negative wording and attributions to self and others that they identified in Rizzo et al.'s (1970) original items. By comparing their factor structure, and correlations between their new scales and Rizzo et al.'s scales, House et al. supported the construct distinction between role ambiguity and conflict. Harris (1991) expanded House et al.'s (1983) study by testing several different factor models of House et al.'s items with confirmatory factor analysis. A four-factor model including stressversus-comfort wording and the conflict and ambiguity constructs obtained the best fit to the data. In addition, the amount of variance accounted for by the conflict and ambiguity constructs was small relative to the variance accounted for by the stress-versus-comfort wording of the items. Harris posited two possible explanations for his findings: (a) role conflict and ambiguity are too broadly defined in the Rizzo et al.'s measure, and (b) conflict and ambiguity are each multidimensional constructs. Thus, multiple ambiguity and conflict scales need to be developed to measure the various constructs. Taken as a whole, there is reason to doubt the psychometric distinction between role conflict and ambiguity as measured by Rizzo et al.'s (1970) scales. The measures are confounded in such a manner that a general construct of role stress cannot be consistently distinguished from the separate role constructs. However, the research reviewed in the preceding paragraphs suggests the potential for measuring a construct of role ambiguity separate from role stress. It is my opinion that obtaining a distinct measure of role ambiguity will require an analysis of the types of role ambiguity defined by Kahn et al. (1964), combined with wording and response considerations. In their review of the role literature, VanSell, Brief, and Schuler (1981) called for the investigation of multiple components of role ambiguity. In two subsequent reviews (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985), no empirical work had yet been done using separate components of ambiguity. Fisher and Gitelson made no mention of multiple constructs of ambiguity, and Jackson and Schuler (1985) found no literature that had measured multiple constructs. They renewed the call for research to investigate multiple types of ambiguity. A recent study by Dougherty and Pritchard (1985) attempted a new measure of role ambiguity. They measured performanceevaluation ambiguity by using the discrepancy between (a) respondents' expectations of their supervisor's lowest and highest ratings for the importance of each of 27 products and (b) respondents' overall performance. Task ambiguity was defined as how frequently respondents knew how to proceed in performing their work. Dougherty and Pritchard's approach is limited in several ways: Their measure requires more intensive research procedures than do surveys; it assumes that variance in importance for each of the products reflects ambiguity and not interactions with performance on other products; and comparability across jobs with differing numbers of products may be compromised. Assessing task and performance-evaluation ambiguity separately is consistent with the definitions of Kahn et al. (1964) and Rizzo et al. (1970). However, Dougherty and Pritchard conducted all of their analyses on an overall productbased measure obtained by summing task and performanceevaluation ambiguity. To date, no research has evaluated different types of ambiguity separately. In addition to their concern for multiple constructs of role ambiguity, Jackson and Schuler (1985) suggested that bivariate correlational studies should be replaced by theoretically based moderator studies to develop a more precise theory of role behavior. The approach reported in this article advances research on role ambiguity by (a) developing specific measures of two types of role ambiguity (process and goal), (b) testing a structural equation model of the antecedents and consequences of the two forms of ambiguity, and (c) testing theoretically based moderators of the relations between the two types of role ambiguity and their consequences. The theoretical rationale for the model to be tested and the potential moderators is developed next. Consequences of Role Ambiguity Many researchers have attempted to show a set of causal relations with role conflict and ambiguity (e.g. Bedeian & Armenakis, 1981; Jackson, 1983; Kemery, Bedeian, Mossholder, & Touliatos, 1985; Netemeyer, Johnston, & Burton, 1990). My analysis is based on their path models and evidence from previous reviews. The analysis attempts to develop a model of the antecedents, consequences, and moderators of the two role ambiguity constructs. The model (see Figure 1) is adapted from one

3 132 JOHN E. SAWYER Figure 1. Theoretical model of the antecedents and consequences of process and goal clarity. (Fdbk = feedback.) proposed by Bedeian and Armenakis (1981) and replicated by Kemery et al. (1985) and Netemeyer et al. (1990). Modifications were made to the model to (a) focus on the role ambiguity constructs and (b) respond to evidence and criticisms reported in recent reviews. The core of the revised model is the mediated path from role constructs through job satisfaction to propensity to leave reported by Kemery et al. (1985), Netemeyer et al. (1990), and Bedeian and Armenakis (1981). Those authors included an additional mediating variable (job-related tension) between the role constructs and job satisfaction. Jackson (1983) included a similar variable (emotional strain) in her model. Job-related tension was left out of the revised model for three reasons. First, in previous research the direct effect of ambiguity on satisfaction was much stronger than the indirect effect through tension. Second, Jackson and Schuler (1985) argued that measures of job-related tension may not be assessing constructs that are distinguishably different from the role conflict construct. Third, neither the types of ambiguity assessed, nor the context in which the present study was conducted, seemed likely to have a measurable influence on stress-related health problems as measured by Jackson (1983). The model employed in this research investigated the direct effect of goal and process clarity on job satisfaction. Because the role constructs investigated in this research differ from previous role constructs, some speculation about their interrelationship is in order. Two aspects of role ambiguity were measured on a response scale ranging from very uncertain to very certain or clear. Thus, the measures were termed goal clarity and process clarity. On logical grounds, one may be clear about one's goals and responsibilities while not knowing how to attain or meet them (process). Being told what one's goals are may not give any information about how to achieve those goals. On the other hand, being instructed on process often implies certain goals or responsibilities. Although goal and process clarity are distinct constructs, learning processes may allow one to infer responsibility. Therefore, a causal path from process clarity to goal clarity was expected to be supported. The direct effect of role ambiguity on propensity to leave, as tested by Kemery et al. (1985), was not significant in all but one sample. In Bedeian and Armenakis's (1981) test of the same model, the direct effect of role ambiguity on propensity to leave was only.08. They incorrectly concluded that, because their model almost perfectly reproduced the original correlation matrix, all paths were significant. Furthermore, Jackson (1983) did not obtain a direct effect of role ambiguity on propensity to leave. Reviews of the role literature (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; VanSell et al., 1981) have reported mixed findings on the relation between role ambiguity and turnover and have reported large portions of unaccounted-for variance. One possible explanation is that role ambiguity affects propensity to leave only indirectly through job satisfaction. In their reviews, Fisher and Gitelson (1983) and Jackson and Schuler (1985) reported significant negative correlations between role ambiguity and job satisfaction (overall, work itself, or general). Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth (1978) found direct effects of satisfaction on intentions to search and to quit. However, only the intention to quit was directly related to actual turnover. The model tested in the present study proposes that the effects of the role ambiguity constructs on turnover are mediated by job satisfaction, job search behavior, and intentions to quit.

4 GOAL AND PROCESS CLARITY 133 Antecedent Variables Bedeian and Armenakis (1981), Kemery et al. (1985), and Netemeyer et al. (1990) treated the role constructs as exogenous variables. The present model proposes antecedent variables to the role ambiguity constructs, on the basis of the role conflict and ambiguity literature (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; VanSell et al., 1981). Including antecedents to the ambiguity constructs in the model made it possible to test the path from process to goal clarity. Factors assumed to affect the role sender-focal person relationship in the role-episode model (Kahn et al., 1964) were considered antecedent to perceived role conflict and ambiguity. Among the organizational variables that are related to ambiguity and have theoretical significance are autonomy and feedback from others and from the task (Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Autonomy was expected to be more strongly related to process clarity than to goal clarity. When employees are allowed autonomy in their jobs, they are usually not allowed to determine their own goals. They are, however, allowed to determine how to perform the work. Thus, autonomy implies that the employees' decisions about how to perform the work are acceptable and give them more certainty about their work processes. Autonomy was expected to be related to goal clarity only indirectly through process clarity. Although both feedback from others and feedback from the task were expected to affect perceptions of ambiguity, it was expected that feedback from others would affect both goal and process clarity. Feedback from the task was expected to directly affect process clarity and only indirectly affect goal clarity. Feedback from others takes the form of advice on how to perform work tasks, as well as feedback on goal accomplishment. In contrast, feedback from the task itself was expected to be more immediately related to the process of task completion. People look to task feedback to determine if they are performing the task properly. Feedback from the task was thought to affect goal clarity only indirectly through its effect on process clarity. Autonomy and feedback were expected to affect job satisfaction indirectly through goal and process clarity. These task characteristics affect critical psychological states, such as experienced meaningfulness of work, which then leads to improved satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Recognition for performance was expected to reflect outcomes and thus to have a direct effect on goal clarity. Recognition usually comes in the form of acknowledgment for attaining a goal or completing a task. Employees seldom receive recognition for the process used to complete a task. Thus, recognition ought to be related to goal clarity but not to process clarity. Recognition was also expected to have a direct effect on satisfaction and an indirect effect through goal clarity. Recognition is a relatively tangible outcome of the job and should act more like other immediate precursors of satisfaction, such as pay, promotions, supervision, and so forth. Moderator Variables Job level has not been found to relate to ambiguity but has been hypothesized to moderate the effect of ambiguity on employees (Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Jackson and Schuler reported only limited support for this moderating hypothesis. This may be because job level moderates only some types of ambiguity. Conceptually, job level might help an individual cope with ambiguity about how to do the job. For example, a higher level in the organization may be related to the power to define appropriate processes. Persons at higher job levels may be in a better position to define the goals of the job. Job type has been suggested as a moderator of the effect of ambiguity on affective and behavioral responses (Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Lower correlations between role ambiguity and its consequences are found in studies in which the samples are heterogeneous with respect to job category (Jackson & Schuler, 1985) rather than in studies with homogeneous job-type samples. Thus, job category may moderate the associations of goal and process clarity with satisfaction. Because job level and job type are completely confounded in the subject organizations in the present study, only job type was considered as a potential moderator. The correlation between tenure and ambiguity was inconsistent in the literature reviewed by Jackson and Schuler (1985). Tenure may have a moderating effect on the ambiguity-satisfaction link. Jackson and Schuler (1985) suggested that job tenure may be a surrogate measure for ability; that is, the longer a person is on the job, the more job-related skills he or she is likely to have developed. Ability (as reflected in job tenure) should help the individual cope effectively with ambiguity. In the present study, it was expected that this moderating effect would be greatest for process clarity because ability should help the individual find effective work processes. However, ability (or increased tenure) was expected to be less helpful if the goals for performance were not specified. Personality variables were criticized by Jackson and Schuler (1985) as lacking sufficient conceptual justification to expect them to be antecedent to perceived ambiguity. They suggested, as did VanSell et al. (1981), that personality variables may moderate the relation between role perceptions and consequences. Jackson and Schuler reported limited evidence for need for achievement and Type A or B personality as a moderator of role stress and argued that theoretical explanations are lacking. They suggested that the personality variable most theoretically related to ambiguity-outcome relations is the need for clarity. Need for clarity was expected to moderate the relation between both goal and process clarity and consequences. People with a need for clarity are thought to be uncomfortable when there is lack of clarity about how to do the job or their responsibilities and goals (Budner, 1962; Norton, 1975). The empirical evidence presented in this article is drawn from the following: (a) a psychometric analysis of the factor structure and reliability of the goal and process clarity measures, (b) a test of the full model illustrated in Figure 1, and (c) an analysis of the hypothesized moderator variables. Sample Method The sample consisted of mental-health workers in two inpatient institutions located in the southwestern United States. One institution

5 134 JOHN E. SAWYER was a state hospital for the mentally ill. This sample consisted of 171 mental-health aides and assistants, 102 mental-health specialists and management coordinators responsible for supervision of the units, and 65 nurses. An additional 41 employees completed the survey but chose not to provide identifying information. This sample of 379 constituted 92% of the 411 persons employed in these capacities at the state hospital. The second institution was a state school for the mentally retarded. The employees included 79 mental-health aides and assistants and 15 mental-health specialists. An additional 8 employees completed the survey but did not give identifying information. These 102 employees constituted approximately 32% of the 323 persons employed in this capacity at the facility. Sampling was restricted because of difficulties in scheduling employees during daytime shifts, when constant supervision of clients is necessary. Thus, the sample was restricted more by the type of duties required of specific subsets of employees than by specific employees within those subsets. Near-perfect sampling of those employees not restricted by constant-supervision duties was achieved. Thus, the internal validity of the study does not appear to be compromised. However, generalizability to specific areas in which close one-to-one contact is necessitated may not be warranted. Sample sizes were further reduced from the total of 481 subjects by listwise deletion of subjects with missing data or aberrant response patterns (i.e., out-of-range responses) on the specific variables in the analyses. These reductions in sample size are noted in the Results section as appropriate. Procedure In both settings, a survey was administered during work time in conference rooms isolated from the work area. Survey respondents were guaranteed confidentiality. Each respondent completed an informed-consent form, which was used to obtain written permission to gather follow-up turnover data and to obtain archival data from personnel files. A demographic form was used to obtain data on tenure and job classification, which was then confirmed against company records. Role Ambiguity Measure Role ambiguity was defined as two related yet distinct constructs, similar to Kahn et al.'s (1964) rights, duties, and responsibilities (goal clarity) and means-ends knowledge (process clarity). In an initial attempt to develop a multidimensional measure, 63 items were written to measure all three of Kahn et al.'s types of ambiguity. Items were first identified from Rizzo et al.'s (1970) original item pool and Kahn et al.'s items. Additional items were written to increase the number of items measuring each of the three definitions. The items were then sorted by independent judges into Kahn et al.'s three definitions of ambiguity: (a) rights, duties, and responsibilities; (b) means-ends knowledge; and (c) consequences of role performance. Only items that were sorted into the same categories by both judges were used in the measure. The items were rewritten so that approximately half of each group of items were worded in positive terms(e.g., "Iam certain...", "I know..."),and half were written in negative terms (e.g., "I am uncertain...", "I am unsure..."). A factor analysis was conducted on the responses of 958 undergraduate subjects who had been instructed to respond with respect to their course work. A scree plot of the eigenvalues of the principal components analysis indicated that there were four factors. The first two factors comprised items with certain and uncertain wording (eigenvalues and 3.58, respectively). A third factor (eigenvalue 2.50) was composed of a subset of items describing goal ambiguity, and a fourth factor (eigenvalue 1.79) was composed of a subset of items described as process ambiguity. Items that had been developed to measure the consequences definition of ambiguity loaded mostly on the goal factor and did not make up an interpretable fifth factor. Some of the items originally intended to measure process clarity appeared to be measuring autonomy instead. These items were eliminated from consideration. Because a large portion of the variance in the items was accounted for by the positive and negative wording of the items (a problem shared with Rizzo et al.'s, 1970, measure), the items that appeared to best describe the process and goal clarity constructs were reworded for clarity and to remove positive and negative wording. Only those items for which factor loadings and original content sorting agreed were used. The items were reworded as brief statements. The resulting questionnaire asked respondents to indicate how certain or clear they were about each aspect of their work. The response scale was revised to 6 points with anchors ranging from 1 (yery uncertain) to 6 lyery certain). Thus, a high score indicates a high degree of certainty or clarity, and a low score indicates uncertainty. Goal clarity was defined as the extent to which the outcome goals and objectives of the job are clearly stated and well defined. Five items asked the respondent to indicate the degree of clarity felt about each item. Process clarity was defined as the extent to which the individual is certain about how to perform his or her job. Five items asked subjects to rate the extent to which they were clear about the procedures, scheduling, and time allocations required to perform the work tasks. The items are presented in Table 1. The items are written in a generic form to make them applicable to a wide variety of work roles. In response to one of King and King's (1990) criticisms of Rizzo et al.'s (1970) scale, the time-allocation item asked for certainty about how to divide time among tasks rather than how well time actually was allocated. Measures of Antecedents, Consequences, and Moderators Autonomy. Four items were taken from the autonomy subscale of the organizational climate measure developed by Campbell and Pritchard and discussed by Pritchard and Karasick (1973). Many of the original items have to do with managerial roles and were considered inappropriate for this sample. The goal of this measure was to identify the extent to which employees felt free to determine their own work processes. The items chosen apply to general workers and had to do with freedom to determine procedures, schedule tasks, and so forth (e.g., "The manner in which I do my work is left up to me." and "I can schedule my work as I want to."). Feedback from others and the job. The feedback scales asked subjects to indicate their agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) with items stating that agents in the work setting provided information (e.g., "My supervisor (coworkers) let(s) me know how I'm doing.") or that the work tasks themselves provided information (e.g., "Information on how to do my job comes from the work itself." and "The task itself provides useful information on how to do my job."). These items were adapted from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman &01dham, 1980). Recognition. Four items asked subjects to indicate how likely it was that they would be recognized for good work and the extent to which finishing tasks, working above standards, and working hard led to recognition (subjects responded on 7-point Likert scales, with high scores indicating high recognition). Sample items are "When I perform a finished task well my supervisor acknowledges my efforts" and "When my performance is above standards my supervisor (coworkers) give(s) me recognition for my good work." Job satisfaction. The survey contained the Job in General Scale of the revised version of the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1985). The Job in General Scale was chosen because it has been shown to be reliable (r i( =.91), with precise measurement across a

6 GOAL AND PROCESS CLARITY 135 Table 1 Measurement Properties of Goal and Process Clarity Scales Scale/item Goal Clarity My duties and responsibilities. The goals and objectives for my job. How my work relates to the overall objectives of my work unit. The expected results of my work. What aspects of my work will lead to positive evaluations. Process Clarity How to divide my time among the tasks required of my job. How to schedule my work day. How to determine the appropriate procedures for each work task. The procedures I use to do my job are correct and proper. Considering all your work tasks, how certain are you that you know the best ways to do these tasks? Standardized loading Note. The two scales are correlated (<t> =.677), TD (5, 6) =.260. a Composite reliability estimate. Reliability.919" " Variance extracted estimate wide range of attitude favorability (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989). This characteristic was important because of the large number of employees in this sample with low job and educational levels. Need for clarity. Need for clarity was measured with three general items measuring intolerance for job-related ambiguity and four items measuring intolerance for problem-solving ambiguity items were taken from Norton's (1975) MAT-50. This subset of items reflects the types of ambiguity experienced by organizational members in Ashford and Cummings's (1985) research and fits the context in which the current research was conducted. Sample items are "I function poorly when there is little communication in a job situation" and "I get very anxious if I am uncertain about my job responsibilities." Items were responded to on a 6-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Search behavior and intentions to quit. Three items measuring job search behavior and three items measuring turnover cognition, adopted from Mobley et al. (1978), asked subjects to state whether these behaviors were desirable, contemplated, and engaged in. The 7-point scales were scored so that high scores indicate greater search behavior for alternative jobs and greater intentions to quit. Turnover. Turnover was assessed through monthly reports provided by the personnel departments of the organizations for 6 months following the survey. Reasons for turnover were included in the reports. Only voluntary turnover was counted. It was concluded that all of the voluntary turnover in this sample was to some extent avoidable. Results To maximize sample size for the analyses, it was desirable to combine the data from the two data sites. To justify combining the two samples, I compared scale scores on the variables to be included in the analysis across the two data sites for the job classifications that were common to both sites. No statistically significant differences (p =.05) in mean scale scores were found for either the supervisor or assistant job classifications across sites. Homogeneity of the covariance matrices of scale scores was also compared. The test of homogeneity of the Covariance matrices was nonsignificant across sites within the supervisor group (Box's M = ), approximate F(55, 1724) = , p >.05. The test for homogeneity of the covariance matrices within the assistant group was statistically significant (Box's M= 81.50), approximate F(55,68472) = , p <.05. However, because the scale means were not significantly different and because Box's M test is highly powerful in large samples, this difference was not considered large enough to preclude the combination of the samples. The subsequent analysis was conducted on the combined sample. Measurement Analyses of Goal and Process Clarity A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the hypothesis that the role ambiguity constructs constitute two correlated yet distinct factors. The hypothesized two-correlated-factors measurement model was compared with a unidimensional model, using a procedure similar to that used by Netemeyer et al. (1990). A null model (no relationship among items) was computed for normative purposes. The sample size for this analysis was 402. Univariate evidence indicated that item responses were not normally distributed in this sample. For the goal clarity scale, the item means ranged from 4.52 to 4.93, with an average across items of 4.79 on a 6-point scale. The kurtosis index for these items ranged from 0.37 to 1.29, and the skewness index for these items ranged from to The process clarity items had means ranging from 4.58 to 5.03, with a mean across items of The kurtosis index for the process clarity items

7 136 JOHN E. SAWYER ranged from 0.67 to 3.85, and the skewness index ranged from to In addition, an examination of multivariate normality using generalized distance functions (Johnson & Wichern, 1988) indicated violation of multivariate normality among the 10 task clarity items. Because of the violation of multivariate normality, a weighted least squares analysis was performed in LISREL 7 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989), using the asymptotic variance-covariance matrix generated by PRELIS (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988) to obtain weights. The error terms (theta delta [77)]) for the first- and second- process clarity items were allowed to covary because the wording of the items was very similar and the residual covariance term in the previous analysis was large (residual TD > 2.00). The results of these analyses are reported in Table 2. The chi-square difference test comparing the one- and two-factor solutions, x 2 (l, N = 402) = 42.68, p <.01, offers support for the discriminant validity of the two scales, as do the goodness-offit (GFI) and the adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) statistics provided by the LISREL 7 program. The parsimonious goodnessof-fit test (PGFI; Mulaik, James, VanAlstine, Bennett, Lind, & Stilwell, 1989) indicates that the slight loss in parsimony going from the one- to the two-factor model resulted in a substantial increase in fit. The normed comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) indicates that the two-factor model obtained an acceptable fit compared with the null model. Additional evidence of the measurement properties of the goal and process clarity scales is presented in Table 1. The composite reliability estimates (analogous to coefficient alpha, see Fornell & Larker, 1981, p. 45, and Netemeyer et al., 1990, for computation and explanation) for the goal and process clarity scales were.919 and.904, respectively, indicating respectable reliabilities for short research measures. In addition, all standardized item loadings are large. The r-test values for all loadings ranged from to (p <.01), supporting the convergent validity of items on their respective scales. Exploratory analyses using a saturated LISREL model indicated that none of the loadings fixed to zero were significantly different from zero when estimated. A principal factor analysis (squared multiple correlations as communality estimates) with oblique rotation was conducted for comparative purposes and is reported in Table 3. The oblique solution resulted in an interfactor correlation of.586. An additional test of discriminant validity employed by Netemeyer et al. (1990) was used to compare the variance extracted (VE) estimates for the scales with the square of the correlation between the scales (see Fornell & Larker, 1981, p. 46, for computation and explanation). Discriminant validity is supported if the VE estimates are greater than the square of the correlation between the factors. The interfactor correlation from the confirmatory analysis was.677, which is significantly less than 1 (SE =.047; confidence interval = ). The square of the correlation was.458, less than the VE estimate for both the goal clarity (VE =.695) and process clarity (VE =.656) scales. Although a multitrait-multimethod analysis would provide stronger confirmation of the convergent and discriminant validity of the two clarity constructs, the preceding analysis provides substantial evidence in the absence of multimethod data. Evaluation of the Structural Model Full measurement model. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate a theoretical model in which the goal and process clarity constructs were imbedded. Therefore, a measurement model was sought for which goodness-of-fit statistics would be large and the chi-square test would be nonsignificant. As in the previous analysis, univariate tests of normality showed substantial deviation from a normal distribution. An examination of the multivariate distribution (based on squared generalized distances; Johnson & Wichern, 1988) revealed a number of multivariate outliers. However, the weighted least squares procedure could not be utilized for this analysis because of the large sample size required to compute the asymptotic covariance matrix. To minimize the effects of the lack of multivariate normality, observed indicators of the exogenous variables and the clarity constructs were formed by computing additive subscales of the items representing each latent construct. After a principal components factor analysis was conducted to confirm that items loaded on the expected factors, subscales were composed by adding together pairs of items from each factor such that each subscale had distributions as close as possible to normal (skewness and kurtosis values near zero). Three subscales were formed for the JDI Job-in-General scale by summing sets of six items each. The factor analysis indicated that the search-behavior and mtentions-to-quit items failed to identify distinct factors, and therefore three items (two search-behavior and one intention-to-quit item) that had the highest loadings on a single factor were chosen. This construct is referred to hereinafter as search behaviors. Because turnover was a single measure, its factor loading was fixed at 1.00 and its error term was fixed at (assuming a reliability of.95, which is [1 - reliability] X turnover variance). The resulting 19 observed variables repre- Table 2 Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Goal and Process Clarity Scales Model Null One-factor Two-factor x df GFI AGFI PGFI Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; PGFI = parsimonious goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index. CFI

8 GOAL AND PROCESS CLARITY 137 Table 3 Rotated Factor Pattern Matrix, Communality Estimates, and Eigenvalues for a Principal Factor Analysis With Oblique Rotation Scale/item Factor 1 Factor 2 Goal clarity My duties and responsibilities. The goals and objectives for my job. How my work relates to the overall objectives of my work unit. The expected results of my work. What aspects of my work will lead to positive evaluations. Process clarity How to divide my time among the tasks required of my job. How to schedule my work day. How to determine the appropriate procedures for each work task. The procedures I use to do my job are correct and proper. Considering all your work tasks, how certain are you that you know the best ways to do these tasks? Independent variance explained by each factor Note. The factor intercorrelation for the principal factor analysis was.586. Communality estimate senting the 8 latent variables and 1 observed variable with an assumed reliability of.95 were used in all subsequent analyses. Univariate and multivariate tests of these variables indicated that some departures from normality still existed. Therefore, a generalized least squares (GLS) analysis was used because it shares desirable statistical properties with the maximum likelihood procedure while yielding an approximate chi-square test under somewhat less restrictive assumptions than the maximum likelihood procedure does (Browne, 1977). All analyses were conducted with the variance-covariance matrix of the observed variable subscales. The measurement model used the restricted pattern of loadings of variables on factors hypothesized on an a priori basis, but allowed correlations among factors to be freely estimated. The factor loading for one observed variable for each latent variable was set to 1 to fix the scale of measurement. Factor loadings obtained from the measurement model are reported in Table 4, along with factor correlations (below the diagonal), summative scale standard deviations, and summative scale correlations (above the diagonal). All factor loadings remained very similar in subsequent structural model analyses. Goodness-of-fit indices for the measurement model, along with indices for the null and uncorrelated factors models, are reported in Tables 5 and 6. The chi-square for the measurement model was nonsignificant (p >.05). The GFI, AGFI, and CFI reflect the good fit of the measurement model to the data. The significant chi-square difference test comparing the uncorrelated factors and measurement models supports the significance of the factor intercorrelations. Restricted structural model. The theoretical model presented in Figure 1 was estimated with the full-information approach. The residuals for the latent process clarity and goal clarity constructs were treated as uncorrelated for this analysis. Although there may exist common unmeasured antecedents of these constructs that may cause the residuals to be correlated, it was thought that they would operate through the measured antecedents, or that the measured antecedents provide adequate surrogates for possible unmeasured antecedents. To investigate this assumption, I conducted an exploratory analysis, allowing these residuals to correlate. That analysis showed no impact on the planned analysis, and the coefficient for the correlation of the residuals was nonsignificant. Therefore, the analysis constraining the residuals to be uncorrelated is reported for ease of interpretation. The fit indices are presented as Model 1 in Table 5. The nonsignificant chi-square for Model 1 indicates that this model provided an adequate fit to the data. The GFI, AGFI, and CFI also indicate a good fit of the theoretical model. The chi-square difference test comparing the theoretical to the measurement model was not significant (see Table 6), indicating that constraining some structural paths to zero did not result in loss of fit. However, a large modification index for 7(4,4) and nonsignificant t tests for the structural coefficients /3(3,1) and 7(2,3) indicated a need to further evaluate alternative models. In a first step, the structural model was estimated with the 7(4,4) coefficient free. The structural coefficients for Model 2 are reported in the third column of Table 7. The fit indices reported for Model 2 in Table 5 indicate slightly improved fit for the new model. The chi-square difference test for the comparison of the

9 138 JOHN E. SAWYER Table 4 Measurement Parameters (\ x, \ y ), Scale Standard Deviations, and Factor and Scale Intercorrelations for the Structural Models Latent/observed variable 1. Autonomy A B 2. Task feedback C D 3. Agent feedback A B 4. Recognition A B 5. Goal clarity A B 6. Process clarity A B 7. Job satisfaction A B C 8. Search behavior Turnover X Cnnln scale SD * Factor correlations are below the diagonal and scale correlations are above the diagonal. Factor and scale correlations" theoretical model with Model 2 (see Table 6) was significant, indicating a significant improvement in fit. The t test of the 7(4,4) coefficient indicated that it was significantly different from zero. A second alternative model was estimated in which Model 2 was used as a base and the 7(2,3) and /?(3,1) paths were fixed to zero. The resulting structural coefficients are reported in Table 7. The goodness-of-fit indices show no change in fit of the more constrained model, compared with Model 2. The chi-square difference test was not significant, indicating that constraining the two parameters did not result in loss of fit. The PGFI indicates an increase in parsimony with no subsequent loss of fit. Moderator Analysis Three variables tenure, need for clarity, and job classification were hypothesized to moderate the associations between the role clarity constructs and their consequences. Subgroups were constructed on conceptual and practical bases. Job classifications were grouped such that all mental-health aides and assistants made up one group (in these organizations the only thing that differentiates aides from assistants is that aides have less than 6 months tenure), all mental-health specialists and management coordinators who had supervisory duties made up the second group, and all nurses made up the third group. Table 5 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Nested Model Comparisons Model Null- Uncorrelated factors Measurement Model 1 : Theoretical Model 2: Free 7 (4, 4) Model 3: Fix ft (3, 1) and 7 (2, 3) X df GFI AGFI PGFI CFI Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; PGFI = parsimonious goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index..976

10 GOAL AND PROCESS CLARITY 139 Table 6 Parameter Significance Tests for Model Comparisons Comparison Uncorrelated factors vs. measurement Model 1 (theoretical) vs. measurement Model 1 vs. 2 (test of 7 4, 4) Model 2 vs. 3 (test of 03, land 7 2, 3) *p<.05. **p<.0l. df X 2 difference ** * 1.96 The sample size for the nurses' group was only 52, which resulted in poorly estimated measurement parameters. Therefore, it was decided not to include this group in the moderator analysis for job classification. Tenure was dichotomized at 36 months on the basis of observations by administrators at the two sites that employees were either "short-timers" who held a job much less than 3 years or, if they made it past 3 years, tended to become "long-timers." A frequency distribution of job tenure (in months) confirmed the administrators' observations. The distribution was bimodal, with a large cluster of employees with 1 to 2 years tenure and a second cluster of employees with substantially more than 3 years tenure. Only a few employees were near the 36-month cutoff. Need for clarity was dichotomized on the basis of the response scale for the items. Each scale was devised such that a score of 3 or less reflects a tolerance for ambiguity, whereas a response of 4 or more reflects a need for clarity. Thus, when scores are averaged across all seven items, a score of 3.5 or less was thought to reflect little need for clarity and a score greater than 3.5 was thought to reflect high need for clarity. Sample sizes for each group are noted, along with goodness-of-fit tests, at the top of Table 8. Multisample analysis procedures in LISREL 7 were used to test for each of these moderators separately. The covariance matrices for each subsample were analyzed. Because the moderators were hypothesized to affect the associations between the role ambiguity constructs and their consequences, the analysis was designed to test only the invariance of the beta parameters. To assure that the same latent variables were identified for each group, the common factor loadings were constrained to be invariant across groups. The residual variances of the indicator variables were freely estimated across groups to allow for sampling variation. The % \}/, and 0 parameters were estimated freely for each group because they were not included in the moderator hypotheses. The analysis then compared a model in which the four beta parameters found to be significant in the overall analysis were constrained to be invariant across groups with a model in which the beta matrices shared only the same pattern and starting values and in which the coefficients were freely estimated within each group. The first section of Table 8 contains the GFI and chi-square tests for each subsample in which the beta coefficients were constrained to invariance. The GFI was greater than.90 for all subsamples except supervisors, in which it was.837. However, the chi-square tests for all of the moderators were nonsignificant. The next section of Table 8 lists the tests in which beta parameters were estimated independently in each subsample. The same pattern of GFI and chi-square statistics held for that analysis. The nonsignificant chi-square difference tests indicate that there is no evidence of statistically significant moderating effects. Summary of Results Discussion This research was designed to evaluate three questions. The first question was, do process clarity and goal clarity constitute two distinct yet correlated constructs? Yes, the evidence strongly supports this notion. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that a two-factor solution fit the data substantially better than a one-factor solution. All available measurement evidence using this type of data supports the discriminant validity of these two constructs. The only approach that would provide more convincing support of the two-factor model would be a multitrait-multimethod analysis. Future measurement research should attempt to validate these measures with alternate methods to assess equivalent constructs. These results support the contention (Jackson & Schuler, 1985; VanSell et al., 1981) that multiple constructs of role ambiguity should be investigated. The second question concerned a theoretical model of the associations of the goal and process clarity constructs with antecedents and consequences. Although strong confirmation for a causal interpretation can be obtained only through longitudinal or experimental methods, a confirmatory analysis that provides reasonable fit to an a priori theoretical model is at least suggestive of causal interpretations. A theoretical model was proposed based on a substantial literature on role ambiguity and conflict. Table 7 Standardized Path Estimates for the Structural Models Path Til 7,2 7, ft, ft, ft2 043 &4 Theoretical (Model 1).169**.381**.290** **.262**.582** * -.430**.220** Free 7 (4, 4) (Model 2).168**.383**.284** **.257**.157*.582** * -.484**.214** (3(3, D& 7 (2, 3) fixed (Model 3).168**.375**.299**.224**.258**.154*.620**.264** -.480**.210** Note. 744 was not estimated in Model 1. y 23 and ft, were not estimated in Model 3. */><.05. **;?<.01.

11 140 JOHN E. SAWYER Table 8 Goodness-of-Fit and Significance Tests for Analyses of Group-Level Moderators Subgrouping basis Job tenure Need for clarity Job classification Test Low" High Low High" Aides/ assistants" Supervisors N Invarianceofbeta coefficients GFI x 2 df Invariance of beta pattern (coefficients freely estimated) GFI x 2 df Chi-square difference test x 2 df ,, , Note. Critical value for the x 2 with 4 rf/at p <.05 is a Used as the basis for computation of initial parameters. Four variables were proposed as antecedents of goal and process clarity. In addition to having been treated as antecedents of role ambiguity in the literature, these variables were thought to be antecedent because they reflect aspects of the role-sending process. Each antecedent was differentially related to goal clarity and process clarity. As predicted, autonomy, task feedback, and agent feedback were antecedent to process clarity. Agent feedback was not antecedent to goal clarity but appeared to have its effect through process clarity. As predicted, recognition was related to goal clarity and satisfaction. The path from recognition to search behavior was small but significant. Process clarity was thought to be both directly related to job satisfaction and indirectly related through its impact on goal clarity. In this sample of semiskilled hospital employees, only the indirect link appeared to hold. Many of the tasks performed by these employees are routine, and much of the work is standardized by policy. Generally, the subjects scored high on the process clarity scale. It-is possible that the direct association of process clarity with satisfaction may hold in samples of professional workers, for whom there is likely to be less certainty as to how to carry out job tasks. The remainder of the causal model is consistent with the findings of Mobley et al. (1978) and others who have studied the satisfaction-turnover link. Clearly, satisfaction affects turnover indirectly through search behavior and intention to quit. The fact that no direct link was found between the clarity constructs and turnover may explain inconsistencies in the role ambiguity-turnover literature. Only in samples in which there are strong associations between satisfaction and search or turnover intentions and turnover can one expect to find a bivariate association between ambiguity and turnover. The third question addressed the possibility that there are moderators of the associations between role constructs and their consequences. Three moderators were investigated: job tenure, need for clarity, and job classification. Each moderator was expected to affect the association between role ambiguity and satisfaction. The multiple-sample analysis revealed no significant differences in the paths linking process and goal clarity to their consequences. In addition, the path from process clarity to goal clarity and the lack of a significant direct effect of process clarity on satisfaction was consistent across subsamples. The nurses' subsample could not be analyzed because of its small size and the consequent difficulty in estimating the measurement model. With larger samples of professional level employees, the job-level moderator may have an effect. Implications for Application and Research It appears that the goals and objectives of a job can be learned from the processes required to do the tasks for that job. However, it should not be expected that the processes for task completion can be inferred from the goals and objectives for a job. This has implications for goal setting in complex tasks. Recent research has shown that goals are ineffective during skill acquisition (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). However, it should not be inferred that managers should specify processes in the absence of clearly specified goals and objectives and assume that the goals and objectives will become self-evident. Because goal clarity was directly related to satisfaction in this study, specification of goals and objectives should not be left to chance. It is well known that autonomy (the freedom to determine the processes used to complete a job) is an important motivator in many occupations (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). The antecedents selected for investigation in this research were chosen because they encompassed those found in previous research to have the most stable effects on role ambiguity

12 GOAL AND PROCESS CLARITY 141 (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; VanSell et al., 1981). It seems reasonable to expect that these are surrogates for many leader behaviors that may affect process and goal clarity. The path-goal theory of leadership (House & Mitchell, 1974) specifies several leader behaviors that may have such effects. Specifically, directive behavior could focus on defining and clarifying processes for task completion, whereas achievement-oriented behavior could focus on clarifying goals. Participative leader behavior could provide autonomy and the opportunity to learn from task feedback, both of which appear to be related to process clarity. Future research on these and other leader behaviors may benefit from the specification of separate constructs of role ambiguity. The primary objective and importance of this research was to investigate different types of ambiguity in an attempt to explain inconsistent and contradictory findings in research on role ambiguity. As suggested by VanSell et al. (1981) and Jackson and Schuler (1985), investigation of different forms of ambiguity may help explain responses to ambiguity. The present study shows that improved measures of ambiguity constructs are possible and can provide discriminant validity. Although the consistent use of common measures by researchers is desirable for the comparison of results across studies, overreliance on one measure can blind researchers to opportunities to increase explanatory power. Though some researchers have used measures of different types of ambiguity (notably Dougherty & Pritchard, 1985), their failure to separately analyze the different forms of ambiguity may have simplified the data at the expense of explanatory power. Perhaps that research should be replicated with analyses directly addressing the differential validity of task and performance-evaluation ambiguity. Continued research is needed on these and other constructs of ambiguity and uncertainty in work contexts. The present research is limited by the sample (a sample of convenience) and by constraints in interpretation due to monomethod bias. Although the sample was the best currently available, a large portion of the subjects held jobs that were generally routine and required little experience or training to perform. Thus, most of these jobs inherently had a high degree of certainty in both goal and process. Replication with a larger sample of managerial or professional employees in an industry in which there is a higher degree of uncertainty would provide useful comparisons. With the exception of turnover, all of the model variables were obtained with surveys. This is a problem shared with most research on role constructs. Most research in the domain of role theory has assessed the role-sending process indirectly through survey measures of the type used here. The differential prediction of process and goal clarity with different antecedents reduces the concern that shared variance is due more to monomethod bias than to actual associations among theoretical constructs. However, the research could benefit from the use of observation and sociometric methods to determine antecedents of process and goal clarity and to directly assess the role-sending process. Observational methods, such as coding of role-sending interactions, or sociometric techniques, such as network analysis, are very time consuming and place constraints on the types of samples that can be studied. For example, one might require a sample in which there are a number of groups of homogeneous job classifications. A context with large across-group variance in antecedent variables and small within-group variance would allow assignment of scores on antecedent variables to work-group members. Research of this type would allow assessment of the construct validity of separate role ambiguity measures in terms of differential antecedents without the problems associated with monomethod bias. References Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, Bedeian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A., (1981). A path analytic study of the consequences of role conflict and ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 24, Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, Browne, M. W (1977). Generalized least-squares estimators in the analysis of covariance structures. In D. J. Aigner & A. S. Goldberger (Eds.), Latent variables in socio-economic models (pp ). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, Dougherty, T. W, & Pritchard, R. D. (1985). The measurement of role variables: Exploratory examination of a new approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, Fornell, C, & Larker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Harris, M. M. (1991). Role conflict and role ambiguity as substance versus artifact: A confirmatory factor analysis of House, Schuler, and Levanoni's (1983) scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, House, R. 1, Schuler, R. S., & Levanoni, E. (1983). Role conflict and ambiguity scales: Reality or artifacts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C, Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Jackson, S. E. (1983). Participation in decision making as a strategy for reducing job-related strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W (1988). Applied multivariale statistical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Joreskog, K. G.,&S6rbom,D. G. (1988). PRELIS: A program for multivariatedata screening and data summarization. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software. Joreskog, K. G, & Sorbom, D. G. (1989). LISREL 7. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software. 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 \brk: Wiley. Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abili-