Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

ISSN: 0885-3134 (Print) 1557-7813 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpss20

Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Performance:

Empirical Evidence of an InvertedU Relationship
Vincent Onyemah
To cite this article: Vincent Onyemah (2008) Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Performance:
Empirical Evidence of an InvertedU Relationship, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 28:3, 299-313
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134280306

Published online: 23 Sep 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 119

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpss20
Download by: [Higher Education Commission Pakistan]

Date: 22 June 2016, At: 01:10

Research Note
Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Performance:
Empirical Evidence of an InvertedU Relationship

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

Vincent Onyemah
The traditional view of the relationship between role stressors (role ambiguity and role conflict) and performance is
contrasted with a perspective that has received relatively little attention. Some sales force scholars have suggested that the
relationship between role stressors and job outcomes might mirror the invertedU relationship between actual felt stress
and performance (e.g., YerkesDodsons law, activation theory). The empirical evidence they reported is inconclusive: the
hypothesis with respect to performance is not supported. Nevertheless, many sales force management textbooks maintain
that an invertedU relationship exists. Based on a survey of 1,290 salespeople, the present research demonstrates that an
invertedU relationship, similar to that posited by YerkesDodsons law, is indeed plausible. Furthermore, this relationship
appears to be moderated by organizational tenure and proactive tendencies.

A large body of research has examined how role stressors (role

ambiguity and role conflict) affect salespeople (e.g., Singh,
Verbeke, and Rhoads 1996). The dominant view is that role
ambiguity and role conflict are negatively related to motivation and job performance (e.g., MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and
Ahearne 1998). This linear perspective has been contrasted
with curvilinear perspectives (Bhuian, Menguc, and Borsboom 2005; Nygaard and Dahlstrom 2002; Singh 1998) that
were borrowed from the literature on (actual felt) stress (e.g.,
Sapolsky, Romero, and Munck 2000; Selye 1950; Yerkes and
Dodson 1908). It is worth noting that role stressors (e.g., role
ambiguity, role conflict) are related to but distinct from (actual
felt) stress. Stress is a psychological response. It refers to an
emotional experience associated with nervousness, tension,
strain, anxiety, exhaustion, depression, and burnout (Cooke
and Rousseau 1984). Stressors are the stimuli or conditions
that cause stress. The literature on (actual felt) stress suggests
that human beings need some stress to create the satisfac-

Vincent Onyemah (Ph.D., INSEAD), Assistant Professor of Marketing, School of Management, Boston University, vonyemah@
bu.edu.
The author thanks the salespeople and companies who contributed
the data for this study. The fieldwork was financed and technically
supported by INSEAD and the Richard DeVos Direct Selling Education Foundation (DSEF). The author also thanks Daniel Korschun,
Erin Anderson, Heather Poland, Hubert Gatignon, Jagdip Singh,
Robert Dahlstrom, and William Perreault, Jr. for their useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

tion that comes from achievement and to thwart feelings of

boredom. According to this view, moderate levels of stress are
beneficial whereas low and high levels of stress undermine wellbeing and performance (e.g., Yerkes and Dodson 1908).
The question examined here is to the extent that role
stressors (role ambiguity and role conflict) cause (actual felt)
stress, do stressors have an invertedU relationship with job
performance? Although the possibility that an invertedU
relationship between stressors and performance exists is intuitively appealing and even evoked in many sales management
textbooks, empirical tests have not been supportive (Bhuian,
Menguc, and Borsboom 2005; Nygaard and Dahlstrom
2002; Singh 1998). This lack of empirical support might be
related to collinearity problems: the estimation of polynomial
models is problematic because of the simultaneous presence of
predictors and their squared terms. The use of samples with
large heterogeneity has been suggested as an antidote (Xie
and Johns 1995).
Thus, this paper replicates the methodology used by
Bhurian, Menguc, and Borsboom (2005), Nygaard and
Dahlstrom (2002), and Singh (1998); introduces an alternative methodologya varying parameter model; incorporates
some salesperson characteristics not yet investigated; and uses
a more heterogeneous sample of salespeople (i.e., multiple organizations, industries, and countries) to minimize collinearity
problems that are often associated with estimations of polynomial models. In addition to addressing the main research
question (i.e., whether a moderate level of role ambiguity or
role conflict is associated with superior sales performance), this
paper proposes an invertedU relationship that is moderated
by salesperson characteristics.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXVIII, no. 3 (summer 2008), pp. 299313.
2008 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0885-3134 / 2008 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/PSS0885-3134280306

300 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

LITERATURE REVIEW
Work-related role stressors (role ambiguity and role conflict)
are among the most widely researched constructs in organizational behavior (Boles and Babin 1994; Sullivan and Bhagat
1992) and sales force management (Leigh, Pullins, and Comer
2001). Much of the role stressor literature draws on Kahn et
al.s (1964) role-episode model.
Role stressors are often conceptualized as consisting of
two related but distinct constructsrole ambiguity and role
conflict (Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman 1970). In the sales force
literature, some authors (e.g., Singh 1998) have also included
a third constructrole overload. It is, however, not studied as
frequently as the first two (Brown and Peterson 1993). In this
paper, the focus is on perceived role ambiguity and perceived
role conflict. Role ambiguity is the perception that one lacks
information necessary to perform a job or task, leading the
perceiver to feel helpless. It is a salespersons uncertainty about
the expectations of different members in his or her role set
(e.g., boss, customers). Role conflict is a feeling of being torn
in multiple directions, unable to find a way to make every role
partner satisfied. It occurs when, for example, a salesperson
believes that the expectations and demands of his or her boss
and customer are incompatible.
Consequences of Role Stressors on Performance
The impact of role ambiguity and role conflict on job performance is supported conceptually by the role-episode model
(Kahn et al. 1964). Kahn et al. posit that (1)boundary spanners (e.g., salespeople) interact with different role senders
(e.g., fellow workers, boss) in many episodes (e.g., evaluation
and feedback, visits to customers) to obtain information, sales
orders, assistance, and direction; (2)role senders (e.g., boss,
customers) expectations and demands result in stressors when
the boundary spanner believes ambiguity exists (e.g., about
expectations) or conflict exists (e.g., among demands); (3)perceived role stressors are related to a persons psychological, dispositional, and sociological characteristics; and (4)prolonged
exposure to role stressors is likely to overwhelm the persons
resources and thereby undermine his or her job outcomes (e.g.,
job performance, satisfaction, commitment).
The foregoing sequence is consistent with an alternative mechanism proposed by Cohen (1980). According to
this mechanism, as employees perceive greater role stressor,
they will dedicate greater cognitive resources to seeking role
clarification and reconciling conflicting demands. Because
cognitive resources are limited, resources allocated to clarifying
responsibilities and reconciling demands cannot be dedicated
to attaining performance objectives (Cohen 1980).
Much empirical research has investigated the influence
of different role stressors on salesperson performance, com-

mitment, satisfaction, tension, turnover, and so on using a

linear model specification (e.g., Walker, Churchill, and Ford
1977 framework). The general consensus is that perceived
role ambiguity or role conflict has a negative effect on job
performance. A few inconsistent findings such as the positive
relationship between role conflict and performance reported
by Behrman and Perreault (1984) have motivated some
scholars to propose alternative specifications such as interactive models. Furthermore, some findings in the psychology
literature strongly suggest the existence of invertedU effects of
(actual felt) stress on performance (e.g., Scott 1966; Yerkes and
Dodson 1908). Encouraged by these findings, some sales force
scholarsnamely, Nygaard and Dahlstrom (2002), Singh
(1998), and Bhuian, Menguc, and Borsboom (2005)have
examined three alternative models (triphasic model based on
general-adaptation-syndrome [GAS] theory, invertedU
model based on YerkesDodsons law and activation theory,
and interactive models)1 in contrast with traditional linear
models. However, they found no support for an invertedU
relationship between role stressors and job performance.
The results reported by Nygaard and Dahlstrom (2002)
partially support the GAS theory. Only the first two of the
three hypothesized phases (alarm and reactance) were observed. This finding suggests that a Urelationship between
role ambiguity and performance exists: intermediate levels
of role ambiguity are harmful but low and high levels of role
ambiguity are helpful. This seems counterintuitive and opposite to the prediction of YerkesDodsons law, which Nygaard
and Dahlstrom (2002) subsumed in the GAS model. With
respect to role conflict, there is no empirical support for the
GAS model. Consistent with the traditional perspective, a
linear negative influence of role stressor on performance was
observed. However, contrary to expectation, the interaction
of ambiguity and conflict seems to enhance performance. Of
note is the relatively high proportion of null results: 16 out
of 24 hypotheses in spite of data mean-centering to address
multicollinearity.
Singh (1998) did not observe the expected invertedU
influence of role stressor on job performance. Thus, Singh
estimated a final model that consisted of linear and interaction
terms. The interaction this time was not between the two role
stressors (i.e., role ambiguity and role conflict) but between
these stressors and job characteristics (e.g., autonomy, task variety, feedback, and participation). A negative influence of role
stressor on job performance was reported. Only two of the 12
interactions studied (conflict with task variety and ambiguity
with autonomy) turned out to be significant predictors.
Bhurian, Menguc, and Borsboom (2005) compared a
triphasic (GAS) model with a linear-quadratic-interactive
model. Their findings suggest that salesperson job satisfaction,
performance, and turnover intention exhibit cyclical behaviors
with an increasing level of role ambiguity. But with respect

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

Summer 2008 301

to role conflict, salesperson performance does not exhibit a

cyclical behavior. With respect to the effects of interactions
among stressors, only seven interactive terms out of a total of
24 are significant. Also, limited support was reported for the
quadratic modelonly three out of 16 quadratic relationships between stressors and outcomes are supported: role
ambiguityturnover intention, role conflictlife satisfaction,
and job stresslife satisfaction. Thus, empirical evidence of an
invertedU relationship between stressors and performance
has remained elusive.
Some scholars have identified sampling as one possible reason for the dearth of empirical evidence of interaction effects,
especially in the domain of role stressors (Xie and Johns 1995).
Because simple interaction effects are so difficult to establish,
squared-term effects must be equally difficult to obtain. The
lack of heterogeneity in samples partly underlies this problem
(Tosi 1992). Xie and Johns (1995) recommended multiorganization studies as an antidote. Hence, the heterogeneity in
our data (multiple industries, organizations, and countries)
presents another opportunity to investigate the plausibility
of an invertedU relationship between salespersons stressors
and job performance. Furthermore, this heterogeneous sample
can minimize the problem of multicollinearity, unavoidably
present when estimating models containing interaction or
polynomial terms.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
InvertedU Relationship Between Role Stressors and
Performance
Drawing on YerkesDodsons law and activation theory, this
paper hypothesizes an invertedU relationship between role
stressors and salesperson performance. Moderate levels of
role ambiguity (or conflict) may be associated with superior
performance because they stimulate salespeople to engage
themselves and to excel (Singh 1998). At moderate levels
of stressor, salespeople are forced to reflect more deeply on
their job demands and take remedial actions if necessary. A
moderate level of ambiguity about a role senders (e.g., boss,
customer) expectation or a moderate level of contradiction in
the demands of a role sender confirms the challenges inherent
in boundary-spanning positions such as selling (Singh 1998).
This awareness should motivate salespeople to seek support
(e.g., training, coaching, information, mentoring) while addressing these challenges (Singh 1998).
Extreme levels of role stressor have the opposite effect:
(1)a low level of role stressor undermines peoples alertness
or resource activation (Scott 1966). This lack of alertness
or resource activation (i.e., minimal stimulation) may cause
loss of motivation, withdrawal, or relaxation of effort (Scott
1966); (2)a high level of role stressor scares and discourages

people (Schaubroeck and Ganster 1993; Scott 1966). Furthermore, it overwhelms a persons reactive and coping capacities
(Schaubroeck and Ganster 1993; Scott 1966; Singh 1998).
If these mechanisms hold, job performance should suffer
(Scott 1966). In summary, moderate levels of role ambiguity
(or conflict) should be associated with superior performance
and extreme levels of role ambiguity (or conflict) should be
associated with inferior performance.
Hypothesis 1: There is an invertedU relationship between
role ambiguity and performance.
Hypothesis 2: There is an invertedU relationship between
role conflict and performance.
Moderating Influence of Individual Characteristics
This paper investigates the moderating influence of three factors: organizational tenure, tendency to confront situations
head-on, and tendency to transform situations into opportunities. The choice of these variables is guided by (1)relevance
to the mechanism underlying the hypothesized invertedU
relationship, (2)suggestion in the role stressor literature regarding potential moderators, and (3)novelty.
The role stressor literature suggests that organizational
tenure moderates the relationship between role stressors and
job performance (e.g., Jackson and Schuler 1985; Walker,
Churchill, and Ford 1975, 1977). Over time, employees
build psychological defenses. These defenses help employees
to cope with challenges and hardships (e.g., high levels of
role stressor). Thus, compared to new hires, long-tenured
salespeople are more likely to withstand high levels of role
stressor. Furthermore, long-tenured salespeople know better
what is expected of them, have longer exposure to company
practices, and possess a richer repertoire of knowledge and
survival tactics (e.g., Leong, Busch, and Roedder-John 1989).
Consequently, long-tenured salespeople should possess a psychological buffer that reduces their sensitivity to role stressors.
The slopes of the invertedU should therefore be less steep.
In addition, it is expected that long-tenured salespeople, on
average, outperform new hires: senior salespeople tend to possess better abilities to obtain results (e.g., Leong, Busch, and
Roedder-John 1989) in most circumstances. A salespersons
prolonged exposure to his or her companys environment
might give him or her some advantages over new hires. Over
time, incumbents build expertise, which, in turn, facilitates
the achievement of superior performance. Therefore, with
respect to the influence of role ambiguity:
Hypothesis 3: For long-tenured salespeople, the apex of the
invertedU (a)is approached with gentler slopes, (b)occurs
at a higher level of role ambiguity, and (c)occurs at a higher
level of performance.

302 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

(a)is approached with gentler slopes, (b)occurs at a higher

level of role conflict, and (c) occurs at a higher level of
performance.

With respect to the influence of role conflict:

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

Hypothesis 4: For long-tenured salespeople, the apex of the

invertedU (a) is approached with gentler slopes, (b)occurs
at a higher level of role conflict, and (c) occurs at a higher
level of performance.
The tendency to confront situations head-on and the tendency to transform situations into opportunities are facets of
proactive disposition (Bateman and Crant 1993; Crant 1995)
rarely considered in sales force research. These tendencies
underlie a determination to influence the environment rather
than be influenced by it (Bateman and Crant 1993; Crant
1995). The lack of alertness or minimal stimulation at low
stressor levels should be attenuated in the presence of proactive
tendencies. A persons proactive tendency is a natural disposition. It is innatethat is, unaffected by external stimuli such
as role stressors. It is thus possible for someone to be proactive
at any level of role stressor. Also, we assume that people with
proactive tendencies are likely to have other sources of activation or stimulation (and hence alertness) other than the job
itself. Bateman and Crant (1993) reported positive associations
between proactive tendencies and extraversion, defined as a
need for stimulation, activity, assertiveness, and interaction.
If the foregoing holds, proactive salespeople should possess
relatively higher levels of stimulation or activation even at low
levels of role stressor.
We argue that proactive tendencies engender personal initiatives. Proactive salespeople will likely not treat the presence
of stressors as I dont know what to do but rather as I might
figure out what to do, and will take charge to do it. In some
situations, proactive personalities might interpret crossroads
as opportunities to innovate (Bateman and Crant 1993).
Basically, proactive tendencies may reduce the sensitivity of
salespeoples performance to role stressors. Relative to salespersons without proactive tendencies, proactive salespersons
will achieve superior performance because they are more likely
to (1)anticipate problematic situations before they occur or
degenerate, (2)be conscientious and possess larger repertoires
of options to address situations (Bateman and Crant 1993),
(3)be tenacious when faced with objections or challenges
(Bateman and Crant 1993), and (4) possess higher need for
achievement (Bateman and Crant 1993). Therefore, with
respect to the influence of role ambiguity,
Hypothesis 5: For salespeople with stronger tendency to
confront situations head-on, the apex of the invertedU
(a)is approached with gentler slopes, (b)occurs at a higher
level of role ambiguity, and (c)occurs at a higher level of
performance.
With respect to the influence of role conflict,
Hypothesis 6: For salespeople with stronger tendency to
confront situations head-on, the apex of the invertedU

With respect to the influence of role ambiguity,

Hypothesis 7: For salespeople with stronger tendency to
transform situations into opportunities, the apex of the
invertedU (a)is approached with gentler slopes, (b)occurs
at a higher level of role ambiguity, and (c)occurs at a higher
level of performance.
With respect to the influence of role conflict,
Hypothesis 8: For salespeople with stronger tendency to
transform situations into opportunities, the apex of the
invertedU (a)is approached with gentler slopes, (b)occurs
at a higher level of role conflict, and (c)occurs at a higher
level of performance.
MODEL SPECIFICATION
Regression equations involving squared terms (see below) are
a special case of moderated regressions in which products of
the same independent variable are included as explanatory
variables (Irwin and McClelland 2001). Using a varying parameter approach (Gatignon and Hanssens 1987) to maximize
the efficiency of estimators, we specify the following model:

PERFi = b0 + b1,iRSi + ui

(1)

b1,i = d0 + d1RSi + e1,i,

(2)

where PERF is salesperson performance and RS is perceived

role stressor (i.e., a vector of role ambiguity and role conflict).
From Equations (1) and (2), we derive

PERFi = b0 + d0RSi + d1RSi2 + e1,iRSi + ui.

(3)

The error structure in Equation (3) imposes heteroskedasticity.

An unbiased and efficient estimate for beta is given by

1X
= X

1PE RF ,
X

(4)

where X is the matrix of independent variables and is the

diagonal elements of the matrix of residuals.
In addition to Equation (3), two alternative specifications
similar to the types used by Bhuian, Menguc, and Borsboom
(2005), Nygaard and Dahlstrom (2002), and Singh (1998)
were examined. The first alternative (Equation (5)) does not
allow for heteroskedasticity in error structure:

PERFi = b0 + b1RSi* + b2RSi*2 + wi,

(5)

where * indicates mean-centered role stressor variables. Mean

centering is a data conversion approach often used to minimize
problems of multicollinearity (e.g., Singh 1998).

Summer 2008 303

The second alternative (Equation (6)) replicates the

trigonometric specification used by Bhuian, Menguc, and
Borsboom (2005) and Nygaard and Dahlstrom (2002) to
capture the triphasic effect of role stressor on performance
(ref. general-adaptation-syndrome [GAS] theory):

PERFi = b0 + b1(sineRS)i + ki.

(6)

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

Finally, H3 to H8 were tested based on subgroups created

via median-split. Of interest here is the sensitivity of the
invertedU to salespersons organizational tenure, tendency
to confront situations head-on, and tendency to transform
situations into opportunities.
SURVEY DESCRIPTION AND DATA
Primary data come from a survey of salespeople working in
30 companies. These companies are based in Africa, Asia,
Australia, Europe, Middle East, and North America. Industries
represented include food, pharmaceutical, plastic, managed
health care, chemical, information systems and technology, financial service, and light engineering. The companies
contacted were drawn from a list of executive education participants at two international business schools. In return for
a poststudy report, each company provided a list (including
contact details) of its salespeople.
Before the survey was mailed, a senior member of management informed his or her salespeople about the survey via an
internal memo. The original questionnaire was in English. To
minimize language-related nonresponse bias, six additional
versions were developed after extensive two-way back translations. These versions were in Spanish, Italian, French, Hungarian, German, and Turkish. The return envelopes were affixed
with country-specific postage stamps to facilitate participation.
First- and second-wave mailings yielded 2,532 usable questionnaires in seven languages (English, 68 percent; Spanish,
15 percent; Italian, 5 percent; French, 5 percent; Hungarian,
4 percent; German, 1 percent; and Turkish, 2 percent). The
lowest within-company response rate was 50 percent. Analysis
of nonresponse bias (Armstrong and Overton 1977) did not
reveal significant differences between early and late respondents. Their ages and education (i.e., years of schooling after
the age of ten) averaged 35 years and 12 years, respectively.
Thirty-three percent of respondents were female.
Data on salesperson performance were sourced independently to minimize common method bias. Participating
companies were asked to provide their single best indicator
of salesperson performance that is not only meaningful but
also accurate and timely. Fourteen of the 30 companies
granted our request. Consequently, only 1,290 of the 2,532
usable questionnaires have corresponding performance data
(Table 1). The companies that provided performance data
are based in Western Europe, Africa, and North America.

They operate in six industriesfood, chemical, plastic,

managed health care, pharmaceutical, and information systems and technology. Tests of differential attrition did not
reveal systematic differences between the group of firms that
provided performance data and the group that did not. To
ensure accurate matching of archival data with survey data,
each questionnaire was unobtrusively coded. The codes were
subsequently destroyed to protect the privacy of respondents.
To enable comparison across organizations, the raw performance data were standardized within each company for use
in subsequent analyses.
ANALYSIS
Psychometric Properties
Role ambiguity (five items) and role conflict (five items) were
measured with scales developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). Tendency to confront situations head-on (four
items) and tendency to transform situations into opportunities (seven items) were measured with scales developed by
Bateman and Crant (1993) and Crant (1995). The Appendix
contains the list of items used in this research. Results of exploratory factor analysis conformed to expectations derived
from theory. A single confirmatory factor analysis involving
the four constructs yielded overall fit statistics that are within
acceptable limits: root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA)= 0.0621, confidence interval (CI90%): 0.0585 to
0.0657, goodness-of-fit index (GFI)= 0.92, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI)= 0.90, comparative fit index (CFI)=
0.87, and normed fit index (NFI)= 0.90 (Diamantopoulos
and Siguaw 2000).
To demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity, we
used the method proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981). For
convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) for
each construct must be at least 0.50. For discriminant validity,
the AVE for a given construct must be greater than the variance
shared with the other constructs (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
Results confirm both convergent and discriminant validity
because the AVEs are greater than 0.50 (role ambiguity, 0.59;
role conflict, 0.57; tendency to confront situations head-on,
0.55; tendency to transform situations into opportunities,
0.58) and exceed the shared variances.
Furthermore, to check if the differences between the role
ambiguity and role conflict scales are solely due to wording
discrepancies, a two-factor model of role stressor was contrasted with an alternative model in which the ten items used
to measure role ambiguity and conflict load complexly on a
second-order factor model (e.g., McGee, Ferguson, and Seers
1989). The fit statistics for the latter model (c2= 201; GFI=
0.98) are similar to those of the two-factor model (c2= 224;
GFI= 0.98). Thus, the differences between the two scales are

304 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Table 1
Some Details About the Fourteen Companies That Provided Performance Data

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

Number of
Company
Country
Observations

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Hungary
United States
United States
Spain
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
United States
Spain
Spain
Spain
Italy
Nigeria

Within-Company
Response Rate
(percent)

Type of
Performance Data

92
68
56
50
100
100
98
73
68
54
72
77
60
100

Sales
Sales
Percentage of quota achieved
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Wastes
Sales
Percentage of quota achieved
Percentage of quota achieved
Percentage of quota achieved

103
94
68
82
36
22
49
22
391
167
73
24
113
46

not solely due to wording discrepancies. So the first-order factor model was retained for use in subsequent analyses.
Assessing Configural Invariance Across Countries
Even though there is no cultural dimension to our model and
hypotheses, the multinational nature of our data requires that
we assess configural invariance across the countries (Horn
1991). Therefore, we conducted a multicountry confirmatory
factor analysis using the method proposed by Steenkamp and
Baumgartner (1998). The existence of similar factor loading
patterns across multiple groups is the minimum requirement
for measurement invariance (Horn, McArdle, and Mason
1983; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). We obtained fit
statistics that are within acceptable ranges: RMSEA= 0.062,
CI90%: 0.058 to 0.065, CFI= 0.86, consistent Akaike information criterion (CAIC) = 3,744 (Steenkamp and Baumgartner
1998). These statistics suggest that the patterns of factor
loadings are similar across the countries. Table 2 contains a
summary of descriptive statistics and correlations.
Estimation of Parameters, Tests, and Results
Ten regressions were conducted. In the first run, performance
was regressed against role stressor using a linear model. In the
second run, an invertedU model was estimated. The next
six runs investigate the moderating influence of organizational tenure, tendency to confront situations head-on, and
tendency to transform situations into opportunities. The
penultimate and last regressions provide parameter estimates
for Equations (5) and (6), respectively. Two covariatesage
and genderwere included in every model. A summary of

actual results versus hypothesized relationships is presented

in Table 3 and estimated parameters are presented in Tables
4 and 5. Graphical depictions of estimated relationships are
shown in Figures 1 to 6.
Overall, invertedU specifications provided better Rsquared
statistics. Although the models explained modest levels of variance (ranging from 0.04 percent to 9.00 percent), the results
are important from a conceptual and applied perspective.
Furthermore, the effect sizes, correlations, and explained
variances are similar to that reported in the literature (e.g.,
Churchill et al. 1985).
Role Ambiguity
Consistent with H1, there is an invertedU influence of role
ambiguity on salesperson performance (Table 4, column 2:
roleambiguity= 0.40, p< 0.05; squareofroleambiguity= 0.07, p<
0.05; R2= 6.5 percent). In support of H3a, the slope of
the invertedU for long-tenured salespeople (= 0.28) is
significantly gentler than that for short-tenured salespeople
(= 0.51): p< 0.01.2 H3b is not supported: the apex of the
invertedU occurs at the same level of role ambiguity for
both groups of salespeople (p> 0.10). Consistent with H3c,
long-tenured salespeople, on average, outperform their shorttenured counterparts even when role ambiguity is higher
(Figure 1: the test of difference of means across the two groups
is significant at p< 0.05).
H5a, H5b, and H5c are not supported (p> 0.10): tendency to confront situations head-on does not moderate
the invertedU influence of role ambiguity on salesperson
performance (Figure 2). H7a and H7c are partially supported: the impact of tendency to transform situations into

Salesperson performance
Role ambiguity
Role conflict
Organizational tenure
Tendency to confront
situations head-on
Tendency to transform
situations into opportunities

8.65
6.00
7.00
40.0
7.00
7.00

3.21
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.25
1.86

5.00

5.30

0.00
2.45
3.74
7.00

0.80

0.87

1.00
0.92
1.04
7.30

Standard
Deviation

Notes: Number of observations: 1,290. The boldface correlations are not significant at p < 0.01.

1
2
3
4
5

6

Minimum
Maximum
Mean

0.05

0.06

1.00
0.05
0.04
0.19

0.26

0.14

1.00
0.25
0.00

Table 2
Variable Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Correlations
3

0.05

0.18

1.00
0.03

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

0.19

0.19

1.00

0.44

1.00

1.00

Summer 2008 305

306 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Table 3
Summary of Hypothesized Relationships Versus Actual Findings

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

Statement of Hypothesis
H1:
H2:
H3a:

H3b:

H3c:

H4a:

H4b:

H4c:

H5a:

H5b:

H5c:

H6a:

H6b:

H6c:

H7a:

H7b:

H7c:

H8a:

H8b:

H8c:

Supported
(Yes/No)

There is an inverted-U relationship between role ambiguity and performance.

There is an inverted-U relationship between role conflict and performance.
With respect to role ambiguity, for long-tenured salespeople, the apex of the inverted-U is approached with
gentler slopes.
With respect to role ambiguity, for long-tenured salespeople, the apex of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level
of role ambiguity.
With respect to role ambiguity, for long-tenured salespeople, the apex of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level
of performance.
With respect to role conflict, for long-tenured salespeople, the apex of the inverted-U is approached with
gentler slopes.
With respect to role conflict, for long-tenured salespeople, the apex of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level
of role ambiguity.
With respect to role conflict, for long-tenured salespeople, the apex of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level
of performance.
With respect to role ambiguity, for salespeople with stronger tendency to confront situations head on, the apex
of the inverted-U is approached with gentler slopes.
With respect to role ambiguity, for salespeople with stronger tendency to confront situations head on, the apex
of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level of role ambiguity.
With respect to role ambiguity, for salespeople with stronger tendency to confront situations head on, the apex
of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level of performance.
With respect to role conflict, for salespeople with stronger tendency to confront situations head on, the apex
of the inverted-U is approached with gentler slopes.
With respect to role conflict, for salespeople with stronger tendency to confront situations head on, the apex
of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level of role ambiguity.
With respect to role conflict, for salespeople with stronger tendency to confront situations head on, the apex
of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level of performance.
With respect to role ambiguity, for salespeople with stronger tendency to transform situations into opportunities,
the apex of the inverted-U is approached with gentler slopes.
With respect to role ambiguity, for salespeople with stronger tendency to transform situations into opportunities,
the apex of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level of role ambiguity.
With respect to role ambiguity, for salespeople with stronger tendency to transform situations into opportunities,
the apex of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level of performance.
With respect to role conflict, for salespeople with stronger tendency to transform situations into opportunities,
the apex of the inverted-U is approached with gentler slopes.
With respect to role conflict, for salespeople with stronger tendency to transform situations into opportunities,
the apex of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level of role ambiguity.
With respect to role conflict, for salespeople with stronger tendency to transform situations into opportunities,
the apex of the inverted-U occurs at a higher level of performance.

opportunities is significant (p< 0.05) only at high levels of

role ambiguity (Figure 3).
With respect to the linear model (Table 4, column 1),
there is no significant relationship between role ambiguity
and performance (Table 4, column 1: roleambiguity= 0.03, p>
0.10; R2= 1.6 percent). However, the regression based on
mean-centered data revealed a linear positive association
between role ambiguity and performance (Table 4, column
6: roleambiguity= 0.27, p< 0.10; squareofroleambiguity= 0.039, p>
0.10; R2= 3.0 percent). Finally, the trigonometric model was
not supported (Table 4, column 7: sineofroleambiguity= 0.003,
p> 0.10; R2= 1.0 percent).

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Mixed
No
Mixed
Yes
No
Mixed

Role Conflict
Consistent with H2, there is an invertedU influence of role
conflict on salesperson performance (Table 5, column 2:
roleconflict= 0.50, p< 0.01; squareofroleconflict= 0.062, p< 0.01;
R2= 7.0 percent).
In support of H4a, the slope of the invertedU for longtenured salespeople (= 0.38) is gentler than that for shorttenured salespeople (= 0.81); p< 0.01 (see also Figure 4).
H4b is also supported: the apex of the curve for long-tenured
salespeople occurs at a higher level of role conflict (Figure 4:
5.10 versus 4.02; p< 0.01). In support of H4c, long-tenured

0.723***
0.044***

0.723***
0.043***

0.75***
(2.83)
0.40**
(2.26)
0.07**
(2.17)
0.01*
(1.91)
0.62
(0.62)
6.5

0.539***
0.049***

0.74**
(2.30)
0.51**
(2.37)
0.09**
(2.23)
0.003
(0.57)
0.77
(0.84)
6.8

3a

0.778***
0.040***

0.00
(0.01)
0.28
(1.04)
0.05
(1.07)
0.00
(0.25)
0.37
(0.36)
0.05

3b

0.789***
0.045***

0.92**
(2.38)
0.41*
(1.70)
0.08*
(1.59)
0.01**
(2.58)
0.60
(0.57)
6.2

4a

0.743**
0.031**

0.61*
(1.79)
0.34*
(1.60)
0.06*
(1.55)
0.01
(0.75)
0.50
(0.45)
2.7

4b

0.777***
0.048***

1.25***
(3.00)
0.73***
(2.67)
0.13***
(2.57)
0.01*
(1.79)
0.76
(0.80)
8.6

5a

0.698*
0.024*

0.20
(0.54)
0.06
(0.25)
0.01
(0.27)
0.003
(0.51)
0.43
(0.70)
0.04

5b

0.431***
0.079***

0.51**
(2.43)
0.27*
(1.71)
0.039
(1.25)
0.01*
(1.80)
0.50
(0.43)
3.0

0.01*
(1.87)
0.45
(0.40)
1.0

0.010
(0.049)
0.003
(0.067)

Notes: (1) Replication of the most common model (i.e., linear relationship between role ambiguity and performance). (2) Parabolic (inverted-U) specification using a varying parameter approach. (3a) Based on data for salespeople with less than 4 years of tenure. (3b) Based on data for salespeople with more than 4 years of tenure. (4a) Based on data for salespeople with less than
5.50 on the confronter scale. (4b) Based on data for salespeople with more than 5.50 on the confronter scale. (5a) Based on data for salespeople with less than 5.29 on the transformer scale. (5b)
Based on data for salespeople with more than 5.29 on the transformer scale. (6) Based on mean-centered data (e.g., Singh 1998). (7) Based on sine-transformed data (e.g., Bhuian, Menguc, and
Borsboom 2005; Nygaard and Dahlstrom 2002). t-test: two-tailed; *** significant at p < 0.01; ** significant at p < 0.05; * significant at p < 0.10

Constant
Square of role ambiguity

Test for Heteroskedasticity

Constant
0.31*

(1.83)
Role ambiguity
0.03

(0.67)
Square of role ambiguity

Age
0.01*

(1.91)
Gender
0.66

(0.66)
Fit (R-square) (percent)
1.6

Dependent Variable: Salesperson Performance

Table 4
Results of Regression (Role Ambiguity)

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

Summer 2008 307

0.728***
0.016***

0.707***
0.017***

1.05***
(3.00)
0.50***
(3.12)
0.062***
(2.85)
0.01*
(1.90)
0.69
(0.62)
7.0

0.815
0.007

1.81***
(3.45)
0.81***
(3.75)
0.111***
(3.83)
0.01*
(1.90)
0.71
(0.84)
8.0

3a

0.656***
0.027***

0.85*
(1.75)
0.38*
(1.76)
0.043
(1.41)
0.00
(0.40)
0.47
(0.45)
2.6

3b

0.490***
0.041***

1.40***
(3.77)
0.62***
(3.00)
0.072***
(2.40)
0.01**
(2.80)
0.66
(0.59)
9.0

4a

0.740
0.004

0.65*
(1.65)
0.31*
(1.59)
0.043*
(1.65)
0.01*
(1.75)
0.60
(0.40)
4.5

4b

0.572***
0.037***

1.67***
(3.64)
0.77***
(3.33)
0.093***
(2.92)
0.01**
(2.79)
0.76
(0.80)
9.0

5a

0.792
0.004

0.35
(0.65)
0.147
(0.72)
0.019
(0.70)
0.00
(0.50)
0.51
(0.59)
0.1

5b

1.025
0.047

0.07
(1.47)
0.03
(1.45)
0.057***
(2.82)
0.01*
(1.80)
0.50
(0.35)
3.0

0.01*
(1.85)
0.40
(0.45)
2.0

0.07
(0.04)
0.14**
(2.45)

Notes: (1) Replication of the most common model (i.e., linear relationship between role conflict and performance). (2) Parabolic (inverted-U) specification using a varying parameter approach.
(3a)Based on data for salespeople with less than 4 years of tenure. (3b) Based on data for salespeople with more than 4 years of tenure. (4a) Based on data for salespeople with less than 5.50 on
the confronter scale. (4b) Based on data for salespeople with more than 5.50 on the confronter scale. (5a) Based on data for salespeople with less than 5.29 on the transformer scale. (5b)Based
on data for salespeople with more than 5.29 on the transformer scale. (6) Based on mean-centered data (e.g., Singh 1998). (7) Based on sine-transformed data (e.g., Bhuian, Menguc, and Borsboom 2005; Nygaard and Dahlstrom 2002). t-test: two-tailed; *** significant at p < 0.01; ** significant at p < 0.05; * significant at p < 0.10.

Constant
Square of role conflict

Test for Heteroskedasticity

Constant
0.31*

(1.78)
Role conflict
0.05*

(1.75)
Square of role conflict

Age
0.01*

(1.89)
Gender
0.60

(0.56)
Fit (R-square) (percent)
2.8

Dependent Variable: Salesperson Performance

Table 5
Results of Regression (Role Conflict)

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

308 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

Summer 2008 309

Figure 1
Plot of Performance Against Role Ambiguity
(Organizational Tenure as a Moderator)

Figure 2
Plot of Performance Against Role Ambiguity
(Tendency to Confront Situations Head On
as a Moderator)

Figure 3
Plot of Performance Against Role Ambiguity
(Tendency to Transform Situations into Opportunities
as a Moderator)

Figure 4
Plot of Performance Against Role Conflict
(Organizational Tenure as a Moderator)

Figure 5
Plot of Performance Against Role Conflict
(Tendency to Confront Situations Head On
as a Moderator)

Figure 6
Plot of Performance Against Role Conflict
(Tendency to Transform Situations into Opportunities
as a Moderator)

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

310 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

salespeople, on average, outperform their short-tenured counterparts even at higher levels of role conflict (Figure 4: the test
of difference of means across the two groups is significant at p<
0.01). Consistent with H6a, the slope of the curve is gentler
for salespeople with high tendency to confront situations
head on (= 0.31 versus = 0.62; p< .05) (Table 5). H6b
and H6c are not supported (Figure 5).
H8a is supported: the slope of the curve for salespeople
with high tendency to transform situations into opportunities (= 0.15) is gentler than that for salespeople with low
tendency to transform situations into opportunities (=
0.77); p< 0.01 (Table 5). H8b is not supported. With respect
to H8c: at low and high levels of role conflict, salespeople with
high tendency to transform situations into opportunities,
on average, outperform their counterparts with low tendency
to transform situations into opportunities (Figure 6: the test
of difference of means is significant at p< 0.01). Conversely,
at moderate levels of role conflict, salespeople with low tendency to transform situations into opportunities, on average,
achieve better performance (Figure 6) than salespeople with
high tendency to transform situations into opportunities.
The traditional linear model yielded a positive relationship between role conflict and performance (Table 5, column
1: roleconflict= 0.05, p< 0.10; R2= 2.8 percent). Results of
regression analysis based on mean-centered data partially
support a curvilinear influence of role conflict on salesperson performance (Table 5, column 6: roleconflict= 0.03, p>
0.10; squareofroleconflict= 0.057, p< 0.01; R2= 3.0 percent).
Finally, the GAS model for role conflict is not supported
(sineofroleconflict= 0.14, p< 0.05; R2= 2.0 percent). Actually,
this result is opposite to that predicted by GAS theory.
DISCUSSION
This paper provides empirical evidence of an invertedU influence of role stressor (role ambiguity and role conflict) on
salesperson performance. Contrary to the dominant belief that
role ambiguity and role conflict are always harmful, our findings show that a moderate level of role stressor can be beneficial
to salespeople. To my knowledge, this is the first time that a
functional aspect (with respect to salesperson performance)
of role stressor is empirically demonstrated. From a research
perspective, role stressorperformance models that specify only
linear relationships may be too simple to capture the complex
reality of how role stressors influence salesperson performance.
Future research on role stressors may gain predictive power
and richer insight if allowance is made for nonlinear (e.g.,
parabolic) influences.
Estimation of an alternative nonlinear model (i.e., triphasic
equation) yielded results that are consistent with the findings
reported by Nygaard and Dahlstrom (2002). However, these

results contradict GAS theory. Estimation of traditional

linear models yielded a positive relationship between role
conflict and salesperson performance. This result, although
counterintuitive, is consistent with some findings reported in
the literature (e.g., Behrman and Perreault 1984; Dubinsky et
al. 1992; Michaels, Day, and Joachimsthaler 1987).
The observed invertedU relationship between role stressor
and salesperson performance is shown to vary in a manner
that reflects individual and trait differences: at all levels of
role stressor, long-tenured salespeople cope better than their
short-tenured counterpart. Long-tenured salespeople appear
to be less sensitive to both functional and dysfunctional zones
of role stressors. Furthermore, our findings indicate that role
ambiguity and conflict pass from being functional (spurring
performance) to being dysfunctional (reducing performance)
much sooner for new hires. To the extent that tenure coincides
with sales experience, this finding is consistent with the sales
force career stage literature, which shows that career stage has
a fundamental effect on how salespeople view and react to
work environments (Cron, Dubinsky, and Michaels 1988).
The general pattern is one of increasingly favorable attitudes
and perceptions as salespeople progress through career stages
(Cron and Slocum 1986).
The finding that organizational tenure increases the range
over which role stressors are functional is yet another reason
why organizations should engage in activities that foster employee retention. Walker, Churchill, and Ford (1977) argue
that training can increase the tenure of new hires. This is
because training is largely an attempt to compress the kind
of learning that occurs with experience into a shorter time
period (Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1977, p. 161). Another
managerial implication concerns sales force recruitment and
selection especially given the prevalence of personality tests
during job recruitments (Cha 2005). These tests could be
designed to include exercises that reveal the levels of candidates proactive tendency. Our study shows that salespeople
who exhibit a tendency to confront situations head-on or a
tendency to transform situations into opportunities appear
to be less vulnerable to the adverse effects of role stressors.
Of note is the finding that a strong tendency to confront
situations head on appears to be desirable only in environments laden with low levels of role conflict. At high levels of
role conflict, confronting situations head on is costlyloss of
performance. Conceivably, confrontation increases conflict,
possibly to the point where the conflict undermines effectiveness and efficiency. The literature on negotiation suggests that
the use of confrontational style has its limit, beyond which it
becomes impossible to reach optimal agreement. For example,
in international conflicts, the longer a conflict remains in the
confrontation phase, the higher the potential for detrimental
forces (e.g., Zartman 2006).

Summer 2008 311

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

Limitations and Suggestions for

Future Research
Although large in scale, this study is cross-sectional. Thus,
based on our findings, we cannot make causal inferences.
Furthermore, sales performance data were used as the sole
dependent variable. This limits the generalizability of our findings to other job outcome variables. Furthermore, selling is an
unusual role fraught with numerous boundary-spanning challenges. Future research should examine whether an invertedU
relationship between role stressors and performance is present
in nonsales jobs. Another limitation of this study concerns
the use of median-split to create different subgroups for the
purpose of testing moderating factors. The conversion of a
continuous variable into a categorical variable often leads
to information loss. Finally, it will be interesting to investigate other factors that might moderate the aforementioned
invertedU relationship.
Conclusion
Moderate levels of role stressor (role ambiguity or conflict)
are associated with superior performance (because of the
motivation and drive engendered), and low and high levels
of stressor are associated with inferior performance (due to
minimal activation and withdrawal). If a salesperson does
not perceive role ambiguity or conflict, he or she might not
be fully engaged in the pursuit of better performance (e.g.,
Behrman and Perreault 1984). Against the conventional wisdom that role stressors undermine performance, this research
demonstrates that not all levels of role stressor are harmful to
salesperson performance. Maintained at moderate levels, role
stressors can be stimulating.
Notes
1. The GAS theory (Selye 1950) proposes a three-phase
model of reactions to stress. In the alarm phase, stress hurts
performance. In the reactance phase, performance is enhanced
as stress rises. In the exhaustion phase, performance drops as a
result of the stress level exceeding a threshold. These three phases
are depicted with a sine curve. Yerkes and Dodson first calibrated
in 1908 the invertedU relationship between actual felt stress and
performance. According to Yerkes and Dodson (1908), felt stress
is an essential response in highly competitive environments; for
example, before an exam, the heart rate goes up and so does the
blood pressure. The result is that one becomes more focused, alert,
and efficient. But past a certain level, stress hinders performance:
the pressure on the person becomes overwhelming; the body
system is flooded with the hormones epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol. These cause blood pressure to rise and the heart
rate and brain activity to increase, effects that are deleterious
over time (Benson 2005, p. 55; see also Sapolsky, Romero, and
Munck 2000). According to activation theory (e.g., Scott 1966),

a persons performance is at a suboptimal level at both low and

high levels of stress because performance is undermined by a
lack of alertness or activation in the low-stress condition and by
overactivation in the high-stress condition. The first and second
conditions are characterized by low levels of motivation and lack
of enough coping resources, respectively. However, performance
is said to be optimal at intermediate levels of stress because the
person is energized and activated to respond and cope but is not
overwhelmed by them.
2. t-test: one-tailed. Applies to all the tests of (directional)
difference of slopes and means.

References
Armstrong, Scott J., and Terry S. Overton (1977), Estimating
Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys, Journal of Marketing
Research, 14 (August), 396402.
Bateman, Thomas S., and Michael J. Crant (1993), The Proactive Component of Organizational Behavior: Measure
and Correlates, Journal of Organization Behavior, 14 (2),
103118.
Behrman, Douglas N., and William D. Perreault, Jr. (1984), A
Role Stress Model of the Performance and Satisfaction of
Industrial Salespersons, Journal of Marketing, 48, 4 (Fall),
921.
Benson, Herbert (2005), Are You Working Too Hard? Harvard
Business Review, 83, 11 (November), 5358.
Bhuian, Shahid, N., Bulent Menguc, and Rene Borsboom
(2005), Stressors and Job Outcomes in Sales: A Triphasic
Model Versus a Linear-Quadratic-Interactive Model,
Journal of Business Research, 58 (2), 141150.
Boles, James S., and Barry J. Babin (1994), Role Stress Revisited:
One or Two Constructs? Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 2 (3), 5769.
Brown, Steven P., and Robert A. Peterson (1993), Antecedents
and Consequences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction: MetaAnalysis and Assessment of Causal Effects, Journal of
Marketing Research, 30 (February), 6377.
Cha, Ariana E. (2005), Employers Relying on Personality Tests
to Screen Applicants, Washington Post (March 28), A01
(available at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A4010-2005Mar26.html washingtonpost.com).
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr., Neil M. Ford, Steven W. Hartley, and
Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1985), The Determinants of Salesperson Performance: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Marketing
Research, 22 (May), 103118.
Cohen, Sheldon (1980), Aftereffects of Stress on Human Performance and Social Behavior: A Review of Research and
Theory, Psychological Bulletin, 88 (1), 82108.
Cooke, Robert A., and Denise M. Rousseau (1984), Stress and
Strain from Family Roles and Work Role Expectations,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (2), 252260.
Crant, Michael J. (1995), The Proactive Personality Scale and
Objective Job Performance Among Real Estate Agents,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (4), 532537.
Cron, William L., and John W. Slocum (1986), The Influence
of Career Stages on Salespeoples Job Attitudes, Work Per-

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

312 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

ceptions, and Performance, Journal of Marketing Research,

23 (May), 119129.
, Alan J. Dubinsky, and Ronald E. Michaels (1988), The
Influence of Career Stages on Components of Salesperson
Motivation, Journal of Marketing, 52 (January), 7892.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, and Judy A. Siguaw (2000),
Introducing LISREL, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dubinsky, Alan J., Ronald E. Michaels, Masaaki Kotabe, Chae
Un Lim, and Hee-Cheol Moon (1992), Influence of Role
Stress in Industrial Salespeoples Work Outcomes in the
United States, Japan, and Korea, Journal of International
Business Studies, 23 (1), 7799.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18
(February), 3950.
Gatignon, Hubert, and Dominique Hanssens (1987), Modeling Marketing Interactions with Application to Sales
Force Effectiveness, Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (3),
247257.
Horn, John L. (1991), Comments on Issues in Factorial Invariance, in Best Methods for the Analysis of Change, Linda M.
Collins and John L. Horn, eds., Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association, 114125.
, Jack McArdle, and Ralph Mason (1983), When is
Invariance not Invariant: A Practical Scientists Look at the
Ethereal Concept of Factor Invariance, Southern Psycholo
gist, 1 (SummerFall), 179188.
Irwin, Julie R., and Gary H. McClelland (2001), Misleading
Heuristics and Moderated Multiple Regression Models,
Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (1), 100109.
Jackson, Susan E., and Randall S. Schuler (1985), A Meta-Analysis and Conceptual Critique of Research on Role Ambiguity
and Role Conflict in Work Settings, Organizational Behav
ior and Human Decision Processes, 36 (1), 1678.
Kahn, Robert L., Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn, Diedrick
J. Snoek, and Robert A. Rosenthal (1964), Organizational
Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, Chichester,
UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Leigh, Thomas W., Ellen Bolman Pullins, and Lucette B. Comer
(2001), The Top Ten Sales Articles of the 20th Century,
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 21, 3 (Summer), 217227.
Leong, Siew Meng, Paul S. Busch, and Deborah Roedder-John
(1989), Knowledge Bases and Salesperson Effectiveness: A
Script-Theoretic Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research,
26 (May), 164178.
MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Michael Ahearne
(1998), Some Possible Antecedents and Consequences of
In-Role and Extra-Role Salesperson Performance, Journal
of Marketing, 62 (July), 8798.
McGee, Gail W., Carl E. Ferguson, Jr., and Anson Seers (1989),
Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity: Do the Scales Measure
These Two Constructs? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74
(5), 815818.

Michaels, Ronald E., Ralph L. Day, and Eric A. Joachimsthaler

(1987), Role Stress Among Industrial Buyers: An Integrative Model, Journal of Marketing, 51 (April), 2845.
Nygaard, Arne, and Robert Dahlstrom (2002), Role Stress and
Effectiveness in Horizontal Alliances, Journal of Marketing,
66 (April), 6182.
Rizzo, John R., Robert J. House, and Sidney Lirtzman (1970),
Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (June), 150163.
Sapolsky, Robert M., Michael L. Romero, and Allan U. Munck
(2000), How Do Glucocorticoids Influence Stress Responses? Integrating Permissive, Suppressive, Stimulatory, and
Preparative Actions, Endocrine Reviews, 21 (1), 5589.
Schaubroeck, John, and Daniel Ganster (1993), Chronic Demands and Responsivity to Challenge, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78 (1), 7385.
Scott, William E. (1966), Activation Theory and Task Design,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1 (September), 330.
Selye, Hans (1950), The Physiology and Pathology of Exposure
to Stress: A Treatise Based on the Concepts of the GeneralAdaptation-Syndrome and the Diseases of Adaptation, Montreal, Canada: ACTA.
Singh Jagdip (1998), Striking a Balance in Boundary-Spanning
Positions: An Investigation of Some Unconventional Influences of Role Stressors and Job Characteristics on Job
Outcomes of Salespeople, Journal of Marketing, 62 (July),
6986.
, Willem Verbeke, and Gary K. Rhoads (1996), Do
Organizational Practices Matter in Role Stress Processes?
A Study of Direct and Moderating Effects for MarketingOriented Boundary Spanners, Journal of Marketing, 60
(July), 6986.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., and Hans Baumgartner (1998),
Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National
Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, 25
(June), 7890.
Sullivan, Sherry E., and Rabi S. Bhagat (1992), Organizational Stress, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: Where
Do We Go from Here? Journal of Management, 18 (2),
353374.
Tosi, Henry (1992), The Environment/Organization/Person Con
tingency Model: A Meso Approach to the Study of Organiza
tions, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Walker, Orville C., Jr., Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and Neil M.
Ford (1975), Organizational Determinants of the Industrial Salesmans Role Conflict and Ambiguity, Journal of
Marketing, 39 (January), 3239.
, , (1977), Motivation and Performance in Industrial Selling: Present Knowledge and
Needed Research, Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (May),
156168.
Xie, Jia Lin, and Gary Johns (1995), Job Scope and Stress: Can
Job Scope Be Too High? Academy of Management Journal,
38 (October), 12881309.

Summer 2008 313

Yerkes, Robert M., and John Dodson (1908), The Relation

of Strength of Stimulus to Rapidity of Habit Formation,
Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18 (November), 459482.

Zartman, William I. (2006), Negotiating Internal, Ethnic and

Identity Conflicts in a Globalized World, International
Negotiation, 11 (2), 25372.

Appendix
Scale Items

Downloaded by [Higher Education Commission Pakistan] at 01:10 22 June 2016

Role Ambiguity (based on Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman 1970) (anchor: 1 completely disagree to 7 completely agree)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

I know exactly what is expected of me. (R)

I know what my responsibilities are. (R)
Explanation is clear of what has to be done. (R)
I have clear, planned goals and objectives for my job. (R)
I feel certain about how much authority I have. (R)

Role Conflict (based on Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman 1970) (anchor: 1 completely disagree to 7 completely agree)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

I have to do things that should be done differently.

I have to break or bend a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment.
I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently.
I do things that are readily accepted by one person and not accepted by others.
I do not have adequate resources and materials to execute my job.

Tendency to Confront Situations Head-On (based on Bateman and Crant 1993; Crant 1995) (anchor: 1 completely
disagree to 7 completely agree)

1.
2.
3.
4.

I enjoy facing and overcoming obstacles to my ideas.

If I see something I do not like, I fix it.
I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others opposition.
When I have a problem, I tackle it head on.

Tendency to Transform Situations into Opportunities (based on Bateman and Crant 1993; Crant 1995) (anchor: 1
completely disagree to 7 completely agree)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

I am great at turning problems into opportunities.

If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen.
No matter what the odds, if I believe in something, I will make it happen.
I excel at identifying opportunities.
I can spot a good opportunity long before others can.
Wherever I was, I have been a powerful source for constructive change.
I feel driven to make a difference in my community and maybe the world.

Organizational Tenure
Total number of years in this company.
(R) reversed to reflect role ambiguity instead of role clarity.