Supervisor Communication Practices And Boundary Spanner Role Ambiguity.

Salespeople, customer-contact service employees, and other boundary spanning employees often experience high levels of role ambiguity because they (1) operate between the firm and its environment, (2) produce innovative solutions to non-routine problems, and (3) experience differing role expectations from inside and outside the organization (Kahn et at., 1964; Singh, 1993). Babin and Boles (1998) observe that front-line boundary spanners represent a rapidly expanding proportion of a firm's total number of employees and that they occupy a critical role in influencing the customer's experience with the firm. Because role ambiguity is negatively associated with important job outcomes such as performance, satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Brown and Peterson, 1993; Rhoads et at., 1994), managers and researchers are rightfully concerned about the amount of role ambiguity these critical employees experience.

Boundary spanners, like all employees, look to their supervisor for guidance in handling work-related tasks, including the amount and types of role ambiguity experienced (Jones et al., 1996). Underlying all supervisory activities are the supervisor's communication practices; that is, the patterns of communication-related behaviors used when interacting with his or her employees. Communication is the process used to transfer information and influence from one entity to another (Jablin, 1979). Because ambiguity refers to a lack of information and communication is inherently composed of information and instructions, supervisor communication practices may offer a powerful means to address employee role ambiguity and job outcomes.

Extant research (for example, Keller, 1994; Morrow, 1981; Oh et at., 1991; Tushman, 1979a, 1979b; Zeffane and Gui, 1993) suggests that supervisor-employee communication is associated with decreased employee ambiguity and improved employee job outcomes. However, most of this research has conceptualized both ambiguity and communication as unidimensional constructs, thus leaving the relations between separate communication practices and distinct facets of employee ambiguity poorly understood. The purpose of this exploratory research is to provide a more complete description of the relations between supervisor communication practices and facets of boundary spanner role ambiguity. To do so, five separate facets of boundary spanner ambiguity and four distinct characteristics of human communication, each of which is manifested by a specific managerial communication practice, are first described. Next, an exploratory hypothesis for each of the communication practices is presented. The method used to test each hypoth esis describing the relations between supervisor communication practices and boundary spanner ambiguity are described and lastly the findings from this study and their managerial implications are discussed.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Describing Boundary Spanner Role Ambiguity

Most role ambiguity studies have utilized the Rizzo et al. (1970) scale that conceptualizes ambiguity as a unidimensional (i.e., a single, global) construct. However, the validity of this assumption has been seriously questioned, leading Singh and Rhoads (1991) and Singh (1993) to develop and test a multifaceted conceptualization of role ambiguity and the MULTIRAM scale to measure it. They found that multiple dimensions of boundary spanner role ambiguity are better able to explain job outcomes than is the traditional unidimensional conceptualization. Of the 13 facets of boundary spanner role ambiguity originally identified, Rhoads et al. (1994) report that five are associated with important boundary spanner job outcomes such as performance, satisfaction, and/or organizational commitment. These five are:

1. Ambiguity regarding customers--uncertainty as to interactions with customers and the nature of customer expectations and demands.

2. Ambiguity regarding the supervisor--uncertainty about the amount and type of support the employee will receive from the supervisor.

3. Ambiguity regarding other managers--uncertainty relating to the expectations of managers from other departments.

4. Ambiguity regarding promotion--uncertainty concerning what behaviors are necessary for career development and promotion.

5. Ambiguity regarding ethical situations--uncertainty regarding how to identify and handle ethically challenging situations.

While encouraging the further use and evaluation of their multifaceted conceptualization, Singh and Rhoads (1991) strongly recommend that researchers choose only those facets useful in a particular research program. Because these five facets of ambiguity are associated with important boundary spanner job outcomes, only they will be used in the current research.

Supervisor Communication Practices

Likewise, most research has considered communication as a single, global variable. However, human communication research explicitly holds that communication is a complex construct that cannot be adequately understood using only a single characteristic (Dance 1970). Krone et al. (1987) concluded that organizational communication researchers most often assume the mechanistic perspective of communication which holds that communication is composed of four unique characteristics: the frequency of contact, the mode or channel used to transmit a message, the content or type of influence strategy used, and the direction of the flow of communication. This study will utilize these four communication characteristics to provide an expanded description of both the form and influence of supervisor communication practices.

Communication Frequency

Communication frequency refers to the amount of contact between organizational members (Farace et al., 1977) and is negatively associated with employee role ambiguity (Tushman, 1979a, 1979b; Keller, 1994; Kim and Umanath, 1993; Zeffane and Gul, 1993). However, the relations between communication frequency and the individual facets of ambiguity have not been investigated. Because ambiguity refers to a lack of information and understanding, by engaging in greater amounts of communication with their employees managers should be able to address all the sources of ambiguity their employee's experience. Therefore, the first hypothesis states that:

H1: Frequency of supervisor/boundary spanner communication is negatively related to boundary spanner ambiguity regarding (a) customers, (b) the supervisor, (c) other managers, (d) promotion, and (e) ethical situations.

Communication Mode

Communication mode refers to the method used to transmit information and influence from the supervisor to the employee. Formal modes of communication are impersonal means of communicating such as written memos and group meetings. Informal modes are personalized and often impromptu means of communicating such as verbal, face-to-face interactions used when coaching employees individually (Stohl and Redding, 1987). To improve communication effectiveness, Mohr and Nevin (1990) and Mohr et al. (1996) proscribe the use of informal communication modes. Tushman and Nadler (1978) note that verbal, face-to-face communication between supervisors and employees is more effective because it facilitates timely exchange of information, feedback, and evaluation. However, no research was found that investigated the relationship between communication mode and employee ambiguity. Supervisors may find that greater use of verbal, face-to-face interactions with their employees allows for feedback and clarification of important or confusing issues because employees are afforded the opportunity to receive personalized attention to their unique needs. Therefore, informal communication mode may be negatively associated with all sources of employee role ambiguity and the following hypothesis is proposed:

Communication Content

H2: Informal supervisor/boundary spanner communication mode is negatively related to boundary spanner ambiguity regarding (a) customers, (b) the supervisor, (c) other managers, (d) promotion, and (e) ethical situations.

Communication content refers to the type of influence strategy used to influence the receiver's actions (Fisher et al., 1997). While it may be possible to categorize communication content in a variety of ways (e.g., by its perceived usefulness, see Greenbaum, 1974), Frazier and Summers (1984) propose that communication content is either direct or indirect. Supervisors may attempt to influence employee activities using coercive directions and instructions, referred to as direct communication content. For example, some supervisors explicitly tell their employees what actions to take, when to do so, how to accomplish them, etc. Or, supervisors may choose to use non-coercive indirect communication to influence employee actions by sharing information and decision-making responsibility (Mohr et al., 1996). Boyle et al., (1992) found that non-coercive communication is associated with the strength of buyer-seller relations and Teas (1981, 1983) reports that boundary spanning employees with greater ability to influen ce decisions also experience less role ambiguity.

However, no research upon the relations between communication content and employee ambiguity was found. Supervisor use of direct content does not allow employees to fully understand the basis for their assigned actions and this can lead to greater levels of uncertainty. By using indirect communication content, supervisors provide their employees with information and non-coercive input that allows for feedback and clarification. Indirect communication content should therefore be negatively associated with all sources of role ambiguity that boundary spanners may experience. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3: Supervisor use of an indirect communication content is negatively related to boundary spanner ambiguity regarding (a) customers, (b) the supervisor, (c) other managers, (d) promotion, and (e) ethical situations.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates