A role theory perspective for understanding and guiding HRM practices

Role theory has served as a valuable conceptual and theoretical framework
for the study of individual behavior in organizations (Kahn et al. 1964; Katz
and Kahn 1978). Roles have been seen as the boundaries between individuals
and organizations. More specifically they have been viewed as conveyors of
information to individuals in the organization.
Role theory research has often focused on the dysfunctional nature of roles.
In particular, roles that are ambiguous and roles that create conflict for the
role receiver have been shown to be dysfunctional to both individuals and
organizations (Kahn et al. 1964; Rizzo, House and Lirtzman 1970; Jackson
and Schuler 1985). Corresponding to this line of research has been a heavy
reliance on extremely general measures of role characteristics, primarily the
measures of role conflict and ambiguity developed by Rizzo et al. (1970). In
contrast, Naylor, Pritchard and Ilgen (1980) and Dougherty and Pritchard
(1985) have conceptualized more specific role measures in their theory of
behavior in organizations. According to their theory, the basic unit of behavior
is an act. Because the time and effort put into an act are not always observable,
the critical unit in the theory is the product, the result of the act. The products
most central to the theory are those evaluated by an observer, e.g., a role sender
such as a supervisor or customer. The evaluation in turn results in outcomes,
positive or negative. The magnitude of the outcomes reflects the importance
(relevance) of the products.