Teacher role stress, higher order needs and work outcomes

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com, higher order needs and work outcomes Sharon Conley University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA Sherry A. Woosley Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA 179 Received January 1999 Accepted April 1999 Keywords Stress, Job satisfaction, Research, Education Abstract Educational researchers have long been concerned with role among teachers. In education, research on the consequences of such role for teachers has largely concerned outcomes valued by individuals such as job satisfaction and reduced. Less research has focused on examining the effects of role on outcomes valued by the organization, such as employee commitment and employee retention. In examining the role -outcome relationship, research suggests the importance of taking into consideration the work orientations of individuals as possible moderators of the role -outcome relationship. Using a sample of elementary and secondary teachers, this study empirically examined, first whether three role es ± role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload ± are related to two individually and two organizationally valued states and second, whether teachers' higher-order need strength moderates these role -outcome relationships. The study found that role es relate to individually- and organizationally-valued outcomes among both elementary and secondary teachers. The subject of role has long been a concern in organizational research, particularly the topics of role conflict and role ambiguity. Recently, role research has focused on the topic of role overload as well. A role has been defined as ``anything about an organizational role that produces adverse consequences for the individual'' (Kahn and Quinn, 1970, p. 41). According to Kahn et al., (1964), the study of role is aimed toward making ``understandable the effects of the contemporary environment on the individual, especially his physical and mental health'' (p. 11). Since Kahn et al.'s theoretical and empirical work appeared in Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity, over 90 studies were published within two decades (Jackson and Schuler, 1985). In evaluating the impact of role es (e.g. role conflict, role ambiguity) in organizations generally, Schuler et al. (1977) maintained that they have been associated with a number of negative work outcomes. Schuler et al. concluded: In general, the results suggest that role conflict and ambiguity are valid constructs in organizational behavior research and are usually associated with negatively valued states; e.g., tension, absenteeism, low satisfaction, low job involvement, low expectancies and task characteristics with a low motivating potential (p. 125)[1]. The authors thank Sal Castillo, Vivenne Collinson, Carolyn Kelley, and Donna Muncey for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article. Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 38 No. 2, 2000, pp. 179-201. # MCB University Press, 0957-8234

Journal of Educational Administration 38,2 180 In related research, Beehr et al. (1976) noted that the negative outcomes examined in role research almost exclusively involve the individual's well-being. These outcomes include dissatisfaction with work, dissatisfaction with life, low self-esteem, depressed mood, self-reported fatigue, tension or anxiety, and several risk factors in coronary heart disease that have been shown to be related to role es. However, although role es are known to affect individuals adversely, their effect on organizationally valued states of the individual, such as work commitment and employee retention, has received less attention. In a recent re-examination of Jackson and Schuler's metaanalysis of role research, Beehr (1995) pointed out that 11 of the 15 outcomes examined were psychological or emotional strains (e.g. job dissatisfaction and tension). It may be that including outcomes that are valued by the organization in role research has a practical advantage. Research based solely on individually valued states may provide managers a weak rationale for reducing role ; they may ask how reduced role benefits outcomes for the organization as well as for the individual. Recently, Beehr (1995) observed that distinguishing between outcomes that are valued predominantly by the individual and organization may suggest that these outcomes are not congruent, an opposite direction in which some theories of organization, such as McGregor (1960), would lead. McGregor's Theory Y, for example, highlights the potential compatibility between the requirements of the individual and the organization in that the satisfaction of ego and self actualization needs can bring about both employee satisfaction and increased effort towards organizational objectives (Scott, 1992). Consistent with other authors, however, the perspective taken in this study is that it is necessary to differentiate individually- from organizationally-valued outcomes, because they are not necessarily congruent. As Beehr (1995) maintained, the critical issue is ``whether the organization or its agents care as much about the individual's health as the individual does ± and whether this health is as crucial to the well-being of the organization as it is to the individual'' (p. 133). Thus he maintained that outcomes of the individual that are valued by the organization should become the focus of research in their own right. Educational researchers have long been concerned with role among teachers. Specifically, classroom teaching has been characterized as an occupation where many role demands are present (Lortie, 1986; Pierce and Molloy, 1990; Sutton, 1984). As Sutton (1984) pointed out, role demands may become ful for a teacher when organizational members' expectations about the teacher's behavior are unclear (role ambiguity), when they are excessive (role overload), or when meeting one set of expectations make meeting other expectations more difficult (role conflict). For example, teachers experiencing role conflict have reported that they are ``responsible for maintaining discipline [but do] not have the authority for doing so'' (Sutton, 1984, p. 23). In addition, heavy workloads and time pressures in teaching are well-documented (Pierce and Molloy, 1990).

Research on the consequences of role for teachers has largely concerned outcomes involving individual teachers' well-being such as general or job dissatisfaction. Bacharach et al. (1986), for example, found role ambiguity to be a strong predictor of general among both elementary and secondary school teachers. The question of whether teacher role es contribute more to individually or organizationally valued outcomes, however, has not been addressed. Educational scholars (Belasco and Alutto, 1972; Benson, 1983) have maintained that both types of outcomes should receive attention by researchers and practitioners. Belasco and Alutto (1972) noted that ``it is apparent that if a given educational organisation is to sustain itself over time it must be concerned with both the attraction and retention of teachers and the faithful performance of their interrelated role activities'' (p. 54). Similarly, Benson (1983) suggested that it is ``imperative for practising school administration to examine carefully variables (related to bureaucratic) school organisation... in an attempt to (both) improve teacher satisfaction and reduce teacher turnover.'' As Beehr (1995) maintained, it seems possible for some role es to be positively related to some of these outcomes, negatively related to others, and not related to still others. Identifying which role es are related to outcomes valued by teachers and school organizations may provide a basis for determining which role es can be altered to benefit both the individual and the school organization[2]. Recent research underscores, however, that the role -outcome relationship is probably not ``simple or direct'' (Beehr, 1995, p. 17) but moderated by individual and work context factors. One potential moderator of the role -outcome relationship, derived from the idea of self-actualization (Maslow, 1943; 1954), is higher-order need strength. Writing from the general organizational behavior literature, Beehr et al. (1976) argued that because role es can interfere with a person's feeling that working hard and effectively will bring about the satisfaction of higher order needs, role es may most adversely affect workers who strongly value the task attributes of enriched work (e.g. autonomy or work freedom). Research (Pastor and Erlandson, 1982) suggests that the work of teaching has many of the characteristics of enriched work including autonomy, skill variety, and task significance. However, research to date has not explored the possibility that teachers who place high importance on accomplishing enriched work (i.e. have strong higher-order need strength) experience more adverse consequences when faced with role es (such as unclear or incompatible role demands) than teachers who place less emphasis on these attributes. That is, role may thwart teachers from performing successfully, thus frustrating teachers who value the task attributes of enriched work. This study takes these considerations into account by empirically examining the following two issues: whether three role es ± role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload ± are related to two individually and two organizationally valued states and whether higher-order need strength moderates these role -outcome relationships among teachers. 181

Journal of Educational Administration 38,2 182 Limitations of previous studies Studies concerning role es appear limited in several respects. First, as Bacharach et al. (1990) noted, research has tended to focus on role ambiguity as a primary role, with less consideration given to role conflict and role overload. However, role overload has been shown to be a critical role for professionals in general (Bacharach et al., 1990). In addition, recent research (Beehr, 1995) suggests that role ambiguity (i.e. lack of clarity concerning organizational members' expectations about the teacher's behavior) results from deficient information available to the teacher, whereas role conflict (i.e. incompatible role expectations from organizational members) typically results from inconsistent information. It may be that deficient information is most troubling for novice teachers (Veenman, 1984), while inconsistent information is more continually present in teachers' work lives. Lortie (1986) suggested that teachers experience a classic role strain between their ``position in the formal system of governance'' and their ``ability to make firm decisions in matters related to their own classrooms and students'' (p. 571). Therefore, research needs to progress beyond role ambiguity to consider other types of role es. A second limitation of role research is the restricted examination of the consequences of role. Research has tended to focus on outcomes of role that are valued by individuals, such as job dissatisfaction and tension (previously discussed). The disciplinary perspective of organizational psychology has been influential in this regard, positing ``job strains'' (tension, job dissatisfaction) as the defining outcome of role (Beehr, 1995). The industrial-organizational (I/O) psychology tradition suggests that additional emphasis be placed on organizational outcomes, thus ing the beneficial outcomes for organizations of reductions in role. A third limitation of research concerns the lack of attention to potential moderators of the role -outcome relationship. Among the moderators that organizational behavior literature has examined are social support (House, 1981) and personal characteristics such as Type A personality and personal needs (Jex and Beehr, 1991). With regard to the latter group, higher-order need strength is a personal characteristic that has been highlighted in teacher motivation research (Pastor and Erlandson, 1982; Barnabe and Burns, 1994). For example, Pastor and Erlandson (1982) found in a study of secondary teachers that ``among the needs that were satisfied for teachers were in the areas of friendly co-workers and chances to be creative and innovative, job variety, and good vacation time'' (p. 180). Further, although the strength of higher order needs varied, teachers were ``predominantly higher order in nature'' particularly in regard to ``the need to take on responsibility for one's own goals and to see these goals through to completion'' (p. 182). Although higher-order need strength has been examined as a moderator of the role -outcome relationship in business settings (Beehr et al., 1976),

such a possibility has escaped attention in education. Therefore, examinations of the role -outcome relationship in education should consider possible moderating influences, such as higher-order need strength. Relationship of role es to individually and organizationally valued states Role es have been related in numerous empirical research to human consequences or strains, such as low job satisfaction, tension, and physical illness (see, for example, Conley et al., 1989; Jackson and Schuler, 1985; Pierce and Molloy, 1990; Rogers et al., 1987). Thus, this study examines the relationships between role es and two individually valued outcomes, job dissatisfaction and general. However, organizational consequences such as performance and turnover intentions may also result from the process (Beehr, 1995). Role ambiguity might be expected to lead to lower performance in some jobs, simply because workers do not know how to direct their efforts most effectively (Beehr et al., 1976). Two types of organizationally relevant outcomes may result from role : reduced job performance and employee withdrawal from the organization (Beehr and Newman, 1978). Employee withdrawal from the organization is one focus of this study. Role should logically be related to employee withdrawal ``given the simple idea that ful occupations are painful and there will be a tendency to want to get away from them'' (Beehr, 1995, p. 141). Among the aspects of employee withdrawal that have been identified are turnover and psychological withdrawal from the organization[3]. Although turnover may be viewed as positive or neutral from the organization's perspective (when for example, the organization provides incentives for early retirement or seeks to fire an incompetent employee), it is usually viewed as negative (Beehr, 1995). The school organization, for example, must bear the costs of recruiting and training new teachers. Most studies have not examined actual turnover but have focused instead on turnover intentions, indicated by self-reported intentions to leave the organization within a specified period. Role (i.e. role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload) and turnover intentions were reported to have a weak but positive association in Jackson and Schuler's (1985) meta-analysis. A milder form of withdrawal is psychological withdrawal as an organizational consequence of role. Psychological withdrawal means that although ``an employee is physically present at work, he or she is absent in spirit'' (Beehr, 1995, p. 148). The concept of psychological withdrawal from the organization is overlapping with that of reduced organizational commitment (Beehr, 1995). Organizational commitment has been defined in role research as a bond or linking of the individual to the organization (Leong et al., 1996). Jackson and Schuler's (1985) meta-analysis found role ambiguity and role conflict to be negatively related to organizational commitment (average 183

Journal of Educational Administration 38,2 184 correlation, ± 0.27). This study examines the relationship between role and two organizationally valued outcomes, organizational commitment and intent to stay in the organization. Higher-order need strength as a moderator The concept of higher-order needs is derived from Maslow's (1943; 1954) need hierarchy theory and the concept of complex needs (e.g. ego and achievement). Higher-order need strength, meaning a desire on the part of the employee to fulfill Maslow's uppermost needs, has been posited to moderate employees' reactions to redesigned or ``enriched'' work (Hackman and Oldham, 1976, 1980). Specifically, people with strong higher-order needs are expected to ``derive [more] satisfaction from performing well on challenging tasks than are people with weaker higher order needs'' (Beehr et al., 1976, p. 42). The satisfaction of higher-order needs depends upon the successful performance of enriched work because ``an individual experiences positive affect to the extent that he learns... that he has personally... performed well on a task that he cares about'' (Hackman and Oldham, 1976, pp. 255-6). Therefore, job design theorists posited that higher-order need strength (or growth need strength) moderates the relationship between core attributes of enriched jobs and affective work outcomes such as job satisfaction (Hackman and Oldham, 1976). In an empirical study of this moderating effect, Hackman and Oldham (1976) found that the relationships between job characteristics such as autonomy and affective work outcomes were stronger among people who were high as opposed to low in higher-order need strength. Asking employees to what extent they would like, for example, stimulating, challenging work, chances to exercise independent thought, and the opportunity to learn new things operationalized higher-order need strength. Their findings supported the proposition that higher-order need strength moderated the relationship between job characteristics and employee work outcomes[4]. Thus, higher order need strength individuals appear better able to experience the psychological effects of an enriched job (e.g. high in variety, autonomy, and feedback) and more disposed to respond favorably to that experience. In other research, Beehr et al. (1976) investigated the possibility that higherorder need strength moderates the role -outcome relationship as opposed to the job characteristic-outcome relationship. The researchers maintained that jobs that have ambiguous, conflicting or excessive demands are ``likely to hinder attempts at successful performance, thereby frustrating higher order needs'' (p. 42). They further maintained that people with high higher-order need strength would react negatively to role in terms of both traditional individually valued states (e.g. job dissatisfaction, fatigue) and outcomes valued by the organization such as effort expended on the job and job involvement. In a study of white-collar manufacturing workers, Beehr et al. found that higher order need strength moderated the relationships between role es (role ambiguity and role overload) and some individually valued outcomes (job dissatisfaction, fatigue, and tension)[5] and, to a somewhat lesser

degree, the organizationally valued states of employee motivation and involvement. However, the researchers did not examine employee turnover intentions as an organizationally valued outcome, although it is conceptualized as such in other work (Beehr, 1995). This study examines higher order need strength as a possible moderator of the role -outcome relationship by investigating whether the relationships between role es and outcomes are stronger among teachers who are relatively high in higher-order need strength than among teachers who are relatively low in higher-order need strength. In addition, because the correlates of teacher and job satisfaction may be different for teachers working in elementary and secondary schools (e.g. McCormick, 1997), the results are examined separately for teachers in these types of organizations. 185 Method Sample The sample was drawn from four school districts in one state in the southwestern USA. The school districts were chosen because of their similar size, (suburban) status, and location bordering a large south-western city. All districts were medium in size, and most had one high school. District superintendents were requested to provide access to preferably all, but at least one school at each level (elementary and secondary) for participation in the study. Superintendents varied in their responsiveness, with one district granting access to all of its seven schools and the others to one elementary and one secondary school[6]. Typically, school principals arranged for the distribution and collection of surveys. Teachers were informed that the survey was voluntary and that their individual responses would be kept confidential. Surveys were returned by 386 of the 580 teachers to whom they were distributed, which yielded a total response rate of 66 per cent (15 of these were discarded owing to substantial missing data, thus generating 371 usable questionnaires). Teachers in the final sample came from 12 schools±eight elementary and four secondary. Response rates per school ranged from a high of 92 per cent (from an elementary school) to a low of 47 per cent (from a secondary school). The final sample consisted of 371 teachers (101 males and 270 females). One hundred eighty-two teachers (23 males and 159 females) were in elementary schools, and 189 were in secondary schools (78 males and 111 females). Further, 10 teachers (3 per cent of the sample) were interviewed. Although the interviews were not numerous or extensive enough to comprise a part of the research, they were drawn on to inform the interpretation of results. Dependent variables Individually valued states were indexed by two variables: job dissatisfaction and. In this study, job dissatisfaction was a composite measure of responses to four items adapted from Bacharach and Mitchell (1982) and Conley et al. (1989). Our measure taps the feelings teachers have about their

Journal of Educational Administration 38,2 186 careers as opposed to other aspects of the job such as pay and supervision (see Conley et al., 1989). The emphasis of these items on the teacher's satisfaction with his or her own career is consistent with the study's conceptualization of outcomes valued by the individual. The four items (scored from 1, very satisfied, to 4, very dissatisfied) are described below. In general, how satisfied are you with: (1) your present job when you compare it to other jobs in the organization? (2) the progress you are making toward the goals you set for yourself in your present position? (3) the chance your job gives you to do what you are best at? (4) your present job in light of your career expectations? Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.86. Stress is a composite measure of five symptoms adapted from Langner (1962) and Caplan et al. (1975). The emphasis on symptomatology (Langner, 1962) is conceptually consistent with operationalizations of the individually valued outcome of in previous research (Beehr, 1995). For each item, respondents were asked to specify how often they experienced the described condition. The scale consisted of four possible responses: (1 = seldom or never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, 4 = almost always). The five items are described below. How often have you experienced the following during the past month? (1) feeling fatigued and unable to ``get going.'' (2) feeling physically used up at the end of the day. (3) being emotionally drained from your work. (4) feeling ``burned out'' from your work. (5) feeling ``run down'' at the end of the workday. Cronbach's alpha for the measure was 0.93. Organizationally valued states were indexed by two variables: organizational commitment and intent to stay. Organizational commitment was a composite measure of two items adapted from the nine-item Mowday et al. (1982) study. These two items were selected because they were among the highest in item-total correlation in some previous research (Turner et al. 1989)[7]. The items were revised slightly to be more applicable to a school setting. The two items (scored from 1 = not at all to 5 = very much) are described below. (1) This school really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. (2) I am proud to tell others I am part of this school. Cronbach's alpha for the organizational commitment measure was 0.84.

Intent to stay was measured by the response (1 = very unlikely, 2 = somewhat unlikely, 3 = somewhat likely, 4 = very likely) to the question ``How likely is it that you will leave this district within the next three years?'' (reverse scored). Independent variables Role overload was originally conceptualized as one type of role conflict that incorporates a particular concern for pressure to do more work, having a heavy workload that interferes with work quality, and the feeling of not being able to finish an ordinary day's work in one day (Kahn et al., 1964; Kahn, 1980). Recently, role overload has been conceptualized separately from role conflict as time compatibilities related to the feeling that one has more work to do than can be completed in the allotted time (Bacharach et al., 1990)[8]. Therefore for purposes of this study we conceptualized role overload as an incompatibility between work demands and the time available to fulfill those demands (Beehr et al., 1976; Caplan, 1971; Rizzo et al., 1970). Thus, we included three of the original Rizzo et al. (1970) items relating to role conflict, two additional items relating to role overload (Bacharach et al., 1990), and four original items from Rizzo et al. (1970) relating to role ambiguity in an orthogonally rotated (varimax) factor analysis. The results presented in Table I support the theoretical constructs of role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload. The items in the three scales were scored from 1 (very false) to 7 (very true). (Role ambiguity items were reverse scored). Cronbach's alpha for role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload were 0.72, 0.83, and 0.80. Scale items for each of the variables considered in this study are presented in Table I. 187 Role ambiguity Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Role ambiguity 1. I feel certain about how much authority I have 0.24038 0.62505 ± 0.02885 2. I know that I have divided my time appropriately ± 0.12993 0.61669 0.28758 3. I know what my responsibilities are 0.14586 0.85473 0.00565 4. I know exactly what is expected of me 0.21532 0.85019 ± 0.02168 Role conflict 1. I often work under incompatible policies and guidelines 0.84215 0.11825 0.11438 2. I often have to buck a rule or policy to carry out an 0.85931 0.16129 ± 0.01593 assignment 3. I often receive incompatible requests from two or more people 0.85820 0.12557 0.07144 Role overload 1. There isn't enough time during my regular workday to 0.01498 0.05629 0.90158 do everything that is expected of me 2. I am rushed in doing my job 0.14327 0.04116 0.90273 Table I. Factor analysis of role es

Journal of Educational Administration 38,2 188 Moderating variable Higher-order need strength is a composite measure of ratings of the importance of five characteristics: ``using complex or high-level skills,'' ``having the opportunity to develop my own special abilities,'' ``having a lot of freedom to decide how I do my work,'' ``seeing the results of my own work,'' and ``doing tasks that are significant to the school as a whole''. The items were rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = not important to 7 = very important and were averaged to form a summary score. Top, middle, and bottom higher-order need strength groups were defined by dividing the sample at the 33rd (raw score of 5.80 and 5.60 for teachers in elementary and secondary schools, respectively) and 66th (raw score of 6.80 for teachers in both elementary and secondary schools) percentiles of the distribution consistent with previous research (e.g. Hackman and Oldham, 1976). Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the frequency distributions of the samples separately for elementary and secondary teachers and show the approximate cut-off points for the three groups. The numbers on the higher-order need strength axis represent the leftmost point of each class interval. Higher-order need strength was drawn from the operationalizations of Martin and Shehan (1989) and are similar to Cammann et al. (1973) and Hackman and Oldham (1980). In this operationalization, ``the items measure higher-order need strength as defined by two orientations, Maslow's (1943) concept of self-actualization and some of the task attributes of intrinsically motivating jobs'' (Beehr et al., 1976, p. 43). Specifically, the first three items are similar to Hackman and Oldham's (1980) growth need strength items.[9] The last two items are similar to two of Hackman and Oldham's (1980) task attributes of an intrinsically motivating job (knowledge of results and task significance). Cronbach's alpha for the higher-order need strength measure is 0.93. Results Table II presents the zero-order intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations for the independent, dependent, and moderating variables for elementary and secondary teachers. For elementary teachers, the left half of the rectangular portion of the table shows that the correlations between the role es and the individually valued states were in the positive direction, and Figure 1. Frequency distribution for elementary teachers

all six were statistically significant (five beyond the 0.01 level of confidence)[10]. The right half of the rectangular portion of the table shows that, with one exception, the correlations between the role es and the organizationally valued states were in the negative direction, and four of these were statistically significant. Specifically, the correlations of role ambiguity and role conflict with both organizational commitment and intent to stay were significant at the 0.01 level of confidence. However, role overload was not significantly related to either organizationally valued outcome. For secondary teachers, the left side of the rectangular portion of Table II shows that the correlations between the role es and the individually valued states were positive and four were statistically significant. That is, all three role es were significantly related to job dissatisfaction (r = 0.30, 189 Figure 2. Frequency distribution for secondary teachers Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean Low-high SD Elementary teachers 1. Role ambiguity ± 0.26** 0.20** 0.32** 0.29** ± 0.40** ± 0.20** ± 0.15* 2.49 1.0-5.5 0.94 2. Role conflict ± 0.16* 0.22** 0.27** 0.42** ± 0.20** ± 0.13 2.73 1.0-7.0 1.43 3. Role overload ± 0.17* 0.34** ± 0.13 0.00 ± 0.04 6.04 2.0-7.0 1.11 4. Job dissatisfaction ± 0.43** ± 0.55** ± 0.38** ± 0.03** 0.82 1.0-4.0 0.64 5. Stress ± ± 0.37** ± 0.14 0.03 2.66 1.0-4.0 0.81 6. Org. commit. ± 0.29** ± 0.03 4.39 1.5-5.0 0.74 7. Intent to stay ± 0.05 2.10 1.0-4.0 1.10 8. Higher-order need strength ± 6.13 1.0-7.0 0.97 Secondary teachers 1. Role ambiguity ± 0.31** 0.13 0.30** 0.13 ± 0.45** ± 0.15 ± 0.05 2.88 1.0-6.3 1.05 2. Role conflict ± 0.17* 0.28** 0.02 ± 0.49** ± 0.08 ± 0.10 3.62 1.0-7.0 1.43 3. Role overload ± 0.31* 0.41** ± 0.17* ± 0.02 0.10 5.90 1.0-7.0 1.25 4. Job dissatisfaction ± 0.35** ± 0.53** ± 0.34** ± 0.02 1.23 1.0-4.0 0.67 5. Stress ± ± 0.10 ± 0.09 0.14 2.64 1.0-4.0 0.85 6. Org. commit ± 0.33** ± 0.02 3.64 1.0-5.0 0.98 7. Intent to stay ± 0.02 1.77 1.0-4.0 1.14 8. Higher-order need strength ± 5.76 1.0-7.0 1.40 Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 Table II. Zero-order correlations among roles es, individually and organizationally valued outcomes and higherorder need strength

Journal of Educational Administration 38,2 190 p < 0.01, r = 0.28, p < 0.01, and r = 0.31, p < 0.05 for role ambiguity, conflict, and overload, respectively); and role overload was additionally related to (r = 0.41, p < 0.01). The right side of the rectangular portion of the table shows that all three role es were significantly correlated with organizational commitment in the expected negative direction (r = ± 0.45, p < 0.01, r = ± 0.49, p < 0.01, and r = ± 0.17, p < 0.05 for role ambiguity, conflict, and overload, respectively). None of the role es, however, were related to intent to stay. In sum, fewer role es were related to outcomes at the secondary level than at the elementary level (seven as opposed to ten). Furthermore, at the secondary level, fewer role es were related to and intent to stay than to dissatisfaction and organizational commitment. At the elementary level, all role es were related to the individually valued outcomes. Moderating effect of higher-order need strength To explore the possible moderating effect of higher-order need strength, top, middle, and bottom higher-order need strength groups were defined by dividing the samples at the 33rd and 66th percentiles of the distribution, as previously described. Consistent with previous research, only correlations within the top and bottom thirds were compared[11]. Higher-order need strength can be said to have a moderating effect if the relationships in the model are stronger for those in the top third on higher-order need strength than for those in the bottom third on higher-order need strength. Three analyses were conducted to ascertain this effect. First, the number of significant correlation coefficients and the strength of those correlations were compared for the top as opposed to the bottom higher-order need strength group. Second, a non-parametric procedure was conducted to ascertain the overall strength of the correlations for the top as opposed to the bottom higher order need strength groups (Conover, 1971). Third, a z-statistic was computed to test for the significance of differences between the individual correlation coefficients. These results are shown in Table III. For elementary teachers who were in the top higher-order need strength group, seven of the 12 correlations between the role es and the outcomes reached statistical significance, while only three of the 12 correlations were significant among the teachers in the bottom third. (Interestingly, of the latter three correlations, two were between role ambiguity and organizationally valued outcomes and both of these significant correlations were slightly stronger than the corresponding correlations for the top higher order need strength group.) For the individually valued states in particular, five of the six correlations among the top higher-order need strength group were more positive than the corresponding correlations among the bottom higher-order need strength group (i.e. the correlations between role ambiguity, job dissatisfaction, and ; between role conflict, job dissatisfaction, and ; and between role overload and ). For the organizationally valued states, three of the six correlations among the top higher-order need strength group were more negative than the corresponding correlations among the bottom

Elementary teachers Secondary teachers Higer-order need strength thirds Higher-order need strength thirds Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Correlations (n = 48) (n = 75) (n = 48) Z* (n = 53) (n = 71) (n = 51) Z* Role ambiguity Individually valued outcomes Job dissatisfaction 0.38** 0.32** 0.24 0.74 0.43** 0.30* 0.14 1.58* Stress 0.25 0.41** 0.23 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.14 ± 0.20 Organizationally valued outcomes Organizational commitment ± 0.31* ± 0.54** ± 0.41** 0.55 ± 0.45** ± 0.57** ± 0.28* ± 0.99 Intent to stay ± 0.28 ± 0.10 ± 0.31* 0.16 ± 0.22 ± 0.12 ± 0.10 ± 0.62 191 Role conflict Individually valued outcomes Job dissatisfaction 0.47** 0.20 0.00 2.44** 0.26 0.34** 0.18 0.42 Stress 0.33* 0.30** 0.16 0.87 0.02 0.00 0.08 ± 0.31 Organizationally valued outcomes Organizational commitment ± 0.51** ± 0.53** ± 0.08 ± 2.33**± 0.58** ± 0.47** ± 0.36**± 1.45x Intent to stay ± 0.27 ± 0.22* ± 0.09 ± 0.90 ± 0.13 ± 0.08 0.01 ± 0.66 Role overload Individually valued outcomes 0.16 0.14 0.24 ± 0.40 0.47** 0.23* 0.36** 0.67 Job dissatisfaction 0.40** 0.27* 0.39** 0.06 0.29* 0.23* 0.69**± 2.83** Organizationally valued outcomes Organizational commitment ± 0.34 0.03 ± 0.09 ± 1.28 ± 0.27* ± 0.14 ± 0.02 ± 1.31x Intent to stay 0.07 0.04 ± 0.14 1.02 ± 0.17 0.05 0.01 ± 0.93 Notes: x p < 0.10 (Z* only); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. Table III. Zero-order correlations between role es and outcomes for teachers in three growth-need strength groups higher-order need strength group (i.e. the correlations of role conflict with organizational commitment and intent to stay and role overload with organizational commitment). Among the secondary teachers in the top third in higher-order need strength, six of the 12 correlations between the role es and outcomes were significant (p < 0.05), compared to three of 12 correlations among the teachers in the bottom third. For the individually valued states, three of the six correlations among the top higher-order need strength group were more positive than the corresponding correlations among the bottom need-strength group (i.e. the correlations of role ambiguity with job dissatisfaction and role overload with job dissatisfaction and ). It is noteworthy that a strong pattern opposite to expectations emerged for the role overload- relationship ± the correlation between role overload and is much larger for the low higher order need strength group than for the high higher order need strength group (r = 0.69 compared to r = 0.29). For the organizationally valued states, all six correlations among the top higher-order need strength group were more negative than the corresponding correlations among the bottom group. At this point in the analysis, it is noteworthy which role -outcome relationships show the most consistent evidence that they are moderated by

Journal of Educational Administration 38,2 192 higher-order need strength in the expected direction. These include the relationships between the role es and organizationally valued outcomes among secondary teachers, the relationships between role es and individually valued outcomes for elementary teachers, and the relationships between role conflict and all of the outcomes for elementary teachers. Interestingly, with regard to individually valued outcomes, the findings suggest a moderating effect at the elementary level (where role conflict is the primary role or) whereas concerning organizationally valued outcomes, a moderating effect is primarily indicated at the secondary level (where all three role demands appear consequential). The second statistical technique employed, the Wilcoxon procedure, provides a test of the overall significance of the differences for the top and the bottom higher-order need strength groups (Conover, 1971). This test is a nonparametric procedure used in previous research because it has the advantage of giving an overall test of the hypothesis without having the parametric assumptions regarding the sample distribution (Beehr et al. 1976, 1977). The Wilcoxon test yielded significant results for both groups (for elementary teachers, T = 18, p < 0.05; for secondary teachers, T = 15, p < 0.05)[12]. These results indicate that the correlations for teachers in the top higher-order need group tended to be stronger overall than the correlations for teachers in the bottom group, consistent with our previous findings. Having assessed an overall pattern of results, a final technique was employed to determine the statistical significance of differences between pairs of correlations previously noted (Table II) for the top and bottom higher-order need strength groups. The correlation coefficients in Table II were transformed to Fisher's z scores and a z-statistic was computed (Neter et al., 1996)[13]. For elementary teachers, the top and bottom higher-order need strength groups showed statistically significant differences for the correlations of role conflict with both job dissatisfaction and organizational commitment (z = 2.44 and z = ± 2.33, respectively) at the 0.01 level of confidence (one-tailed test). For secondary teachers, the correlations of role overload with (z = ± 2.83) and role ambiguity with dissatisfaction (z = 1.58) also showed statistically significant differences at the 0.01 and 0.05 levels of confidence, respectively (one-tailed test). Further, if a 0.10 confidence level is accepted[14], two additional differences between correlations become statistically significant at the secondary level: those between role conflict and organizational commitment (z = ± 1.45) and between role overload and organizational commitment (z = ± 1.31). As previously noted, the results for the role overload- relationship was opposite to that expected; the bottom-third higher order need strength teachers evidenced a stronger relationship between the variables than did the top-third higher-order need strength secondary teachers (p < 0.01). In sum, at both school levels teachers who are high in higher-order need strength appear adversely affected by role conflict (in terms of their organizational commitment) compared to their low higher-order need strength counterparts. At the elementary level, teachers who are high in higher-order

need strength are more adversely affected by role conflict (in terms of their job dissatisfaction) than are teachers who are lower in higher-order need strength. Finally, at the secondary level, both role ambiguity (in terms of increased job dissatisfaction) and role overload (in terms of reduced organizational commitment) more adversely affect high higher-order need strength teachers. Discussion The literature on role es examined in this article made several important points:. role es continue to be of much interest to practitioners and researchers;. role ambiguity has been the primary focus of role research; and 193. individually valued states, such as general and job satisfaction, have consistently been linked to role. This study examined three role es, their relationships to individually and organizationally valued states, and the possible influence of a moderating variable, higher-order need strength. For further clarity and because of precedent in previous research, these relationships were examined separately for elementary and secondary teachers. Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, this study did not consider the amount of effort teachers reported placing in their work, a variable identified as an important organizationally valued outcome elsewhere (Beehr, 1995). Second, the organizational commitment scale consisted of only two items. Given the strength of the relationships with role es found in this study (e.g., r = ± 0.49 for role conflict and organizational commitment for the secondary teachers in the sample overall; r = ± 0.58 for high higher-order need strength secondary teachers specifically), more studies examining role es and organizational commitment appear warranted. Future research could use the original 15-item scale (Mowday et al., 1982), the shortened nine-item version, and/or subscales capturing different dimensions of organizational commitment (see Mueller et al., 1992). Separate dimensions of organizational commitment, such as work and career commitment (Mueller et al., 1992) may show different strengths of relationships with role. Further clarification of the higher-order need construct also appears necessary (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977). It is possible that higher order need strength, as measured in this study, is a proxy for another underlying variable such as perceived competence or confidence in teaching tasks[15]. To the degree that teachers' feelings of competence lead them to value attributes of enriched work (e.g. job freedom), our finding that high higher-order need strength teachers have less when faced with time incompatibilities could be explained. Thus, our results suggest the need for further clarification of the higher-order need strength construct and further investigation of the antecedents of the value teachers place on enriched work.

Journal of Educational Administration 38,2 194 The following paragraphs discuss the study's results separately for the individually and organizationally valued outcomes. Individually valued outcomes The finding that role ambiguity and role conflict were related to dissatisfaction but not to at the secondary level for the sample as a whole deserves some discussion. Job dissatisfaction has been characterized as a milder reaction to one's job than is (Beehr, 1995). This may be particularly true when, as in this study, is defined by somatic symptomatology (e.g. emotional exhaustion). In our study, the negative reactions produced by role ambiguity and role conflict were not enough, at the secondary level, to extend beyond dissatisfaction to [16]. At the elementary level, by contrast, role ambiguity and role conflict are related to both job dissatisfaction and. It may be that the more all-encompassing responsibility elementary teachers have for their students means that ambiguity and conflict affects these teachers' feelings of effectiveness with their students, thereby leading to exhaustion and fatigue in the face of unclear and/or conflicting role demands. At the secondary level, roles are more defined and specific vis-aá-vis students. Perhaps lack of clarity and incompatible demands have more to do with the teacher's subject matter at the secondary level, and thus do not appear to these teachers as visibly affecting their students' individual well-being. The finding that higher-order need strength moderates different relationships at the elementary and secondary levels also warrants some discussion. At the elementary level, for example, higher-order need strength moderates the relationship between role conflict and dissatisfaction, whereas at the secondary level, it moderates the role ambiguity-dissatisfaction relationship. Sutton's (1984) examples of role conflict in teaching seem particularly applicable at the elementary level; for example, teachers were ``expected to provide a quality education to their students, yet were not allowed to use the best instructional methods or educational materials'' (p. 22). In addition, one teacher we interviewed said that the ``curriculum and textbook driven'' nature of her organization prevented her from exercising the ``creativity'' also expected of her to effectively address students' needs. Higherorder need strength teachers are likely to value enriched work, including the autonomy to decide on their own how to go about accomplishing their work. To the degree that role conflict presents teachers with difficulty in performing their work effectively (where on the one hand they are charged to meet students' needs but on the other to follow restrictive teaching methods), negative work reactions are likely to be engendered. At the secondary level, where the roles of teachers vis-aá-vis students are more delimited, it may be that teachers who have strong higher-order growth needs achieve a more narrow focus on subject matter concerns which are maintained despite conflicting role expectations. Among secondary teachers, although role ambiguity was not critical for or intent to stay, it did increase job dissatisfaction among high higher-order need strength teachers. The value these teachers place on enriched

work may center on their experimentation with their subject matter; they may thus feel they are directing their efforts within a fairly clear and defined role. To the degree that they have become accustomed to this focus, the feeling of being unclear about what is expected, as when a new reform is introduced, may be especially frustrating for these teachers. In addition, our results suggest that low higher-order need strength secondary teachers are averse to the amount of work as opposed to a lack of clarity about their work. A very strong relationship was found between role overload and for relatively weak higher-order need strength teachers (r = 0.69). Instead of looking to their jobs to satisfy higher-order psychological needs, these teachers may be ``going through the motions'' of performing the more focused academic goals that are characteristic of the secondary level. To the degree that they implement reflexive, standard routines in performing the work (Starbuck, 1983), time incompatibility may disrupt this performance, thus overwhelming them and leading to negative work reactions[17]. 195 Organizationally valued outcomes Role conflict and role ambiguity are significantly related to organizational commitment for teachers at both levels. Thus, the consequences of role extend beyond job strains to affect a teacher's perception that a linking or bond exists between the teacher and the school. These results are consistent with previous research conducted in business settings (see Beehr et al., 1976; Beehr, 1995). Although role ambiguity and role conflict are (weakly) related to elementary teachers' intent to stay, neither role is significantly related to this outcome among secondary teachers. It may be that the variety and number of elementary schools within each district means that elementary teachers view a job move as potentially reducing their role (Collinson, 1994). The more uniform structure and fewer number of secondary schools within a given geographic area, however, may mean that secondary teachers do not have this expectation of reduced role ; thus, role does not increase their intentions to leave the district. Our finding that role overload is not related to either organizationally valued outcome at the elementary level deserves discussion. This finding would make it difficult to justify reducing workloads at the elementary level, at least from the organization's perspective. However, role overload does decrease the organizational commitment of high higher-order need strength elementary (and secondary) teachers. These results suggest that a work environment that increases the incompatibility between work demands and the time needed to meet those demands risks decreasing the perceived bond between intrinsically motivated teachers and the organization. (As previously noted, role overload does not affect one individually valued outcome: job dissatisfaction.) The finding that higher-order need strength moderates the role conflictorganizational commitment relationship at both levels (and more strongly at the elementary level) is also noteworthy. Thus, elementary teachers who value the task attributes of intrinsically motivating jobs appear more adversely

Journal of Educational Administration 38,2 196 affected by role conflict than teachers do with relatively weak higher-order needs (in terms of job dissatisfaction,, and reduced organizational commitment). To increase organizational commitment among these teachers, sources of role conflict should thus be identified and alleviated. Finally, although role overload increases among secondary teachers with relatively weak higher-order need strength, it decreases the organizational commitment of strong higher-order need strength teachers. Role overload, then, has different effects for secondary teachers with varying amounts of higherorder need strength. Teachers with strong higher-order needs (e.g. who value work autonomy and complex skills) appear to respond to role overload by lessening their commitment to the organization, while teachers with weaker higher-order needs exhibit increasing signs of. To the degree that competence and confidence in teaching tasks is a factor in the value one places on enriched work, it would not be surprising that teachers with weaker higher order need strength show increased in the face of increased workloads. Conclusion Significant previous research has examined role in terms of the outcomes of satisfaction,, burnout, and alienation (Beehr, 1995). However, consistent with some research done in other occupational settings, role was found here to affect outcomes valued by the organization, and particularly organizational commitment. The finding that organizational commitment and to some extent teachers' intentions to leave the district organization are affected by role (primarily role ambiguity and role conflict in this study) may offer a more persuasive rationale to managers for reducing role [18]. Managers who take steps to reduce role may thus not only affect outcomes that primarily benefit individuals (e.g. reduced dissatisfaction) ± but also the organization by increasing the bond felt between the teacher and the organization. Another implication of this study is that educational managers should take the opportunity to strategically evaluate reform efforts to redesign the work of teachers. One popular reform initiative, for example, is teacher work redesign through teacher teaming (Pounder, 1998). To the degree that teacher teaming increases work complexity and skill variety, it is viewed as attractive to teachers who value opportunities for growth and development in their work (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). However, in the transition to team settings, role expectations may be unclear or conflicting (is the teacher more a member of a team or individually responsible for student progress?). Additionally, teacher teaming may increase time incompatibility to the extent that it is simply added to teachers' existing work obligations. Should teaming increase role ambiguity among teachers in secondary schools, as when roles within teams are not clearly defined, the findings in this study suggest that negative outcomes may result, particularly among teachers who value the task attributes of enriched work. Thus, in secondary schools, designers of teams may need to specify clear roles for teacher team members. In elementary schools, where teachers have a more

all-encompassing responsibility for students, this study suggests role conflict may be the more serious issue. If teachers' responsibilities are delineated too tightly in team settings resulting in role conflict concerning preferred modes of curriculum and instruction, negative outcomes may result. Thus, it may be most appropriate to develop general team structures in elementary schools, allowing teachers to define their own roles. Another somewhat obvious, but less than straightforward, implication for practice involves teacher selection. It may be that methods could be found to screen teachers for strong higher order need strength or value placed on enriched work. After hiring, districts might use work redesigns that promote autonomy, feedback, and task variety to help teachers maintain a high value on the characteristics of enriched work[19]. If districts can encourage innovative teachers and autonomous thinkers in their selection and socialization processes, this study suggests that chances of retaining them may be higher if districts also attend to minimizing their role. For researchers, the study suggests expanding the outcomes and dimensions that are considered to be consequential for role in schools. Further, studies of role have not generally been conducted in educational reform settings. It is presently unclear how much redesign of the work is enough to enhance intrinsic motivation while minimizing role for individual teachers. This study examined the relationships among variables of interest in such an undertaking ± role, value placed on enriched work, and perceived work outcomes. Future research conducted in actual reform settings of work redesign should enhance our understanding further. 197 Notes 1. In making this point, they cite Hackman and Oldham (1975). 2. As Katz and Kahn (1978) noted, one way the organization may attempt to accomplish coordination and control is through placing an increasing emphasis on rules as a means of ensuruing reliable behavior among members. Thus, the professional proceeding along administrative paths governed by existing rules is at the same time expected to be oriented toward innovative decisions, which run counter to those same rules. 3. Two others are lateness and absenteeism. 4. Growth need strenght is posited to moderate employees' reactions to their work at two places in Hackman and Oldham's (1976) model: (a) between three psychological states and the outcome variables and (b) between the psychological states and work outcomes. The study provided evidence that growth need strength moderated both of these relationships. 5. Higher-order need strength did no moderate the relationships between role ambiguity/ overload and motivation, however. 6. Because one district contained only elementary schools, an elementary school was selected from that district. 7. The items had a 0.76 and 0.68 item-total correlation for one wave of data collection and a 0.86 and 0.69 item-total correlation for a second wave of data collection (p. 39). 8. In making this point, they cite Newton and Keenan (1987). 9. These items are: stimulating and challenging and work, chances to exercise independent thought and action in my job, opportunities to learn new things from my work,

Journal of Educational Administration 38,2 198 opportunities to be creative and imaginative in my work, opportunities for personal growth and development in my job, and a sense of worthwhile accomplishment in my work (Hackman and Oldham, 1980, p. 287). 10. The correlations are outlined in this rectangular fashion to be consistent with previous research (Beehr et al., 1976). 11. Beehr points out that this method is appropriate since the higher need strength was not expected to be sufficiently precise to permit the discrimination of small differences among subgroups. 12. As Conover (1971) explains, ``the test statistic T equals the sum of the ranks of the differences assigned to those pairs (Xi, Yi) where Yi exceeds Xi'' (p. 208). In our study, we computed the differences between the z scores and then ranked those differences. The ranks of only the positive differences (i.e. where the correlation for the high growth-need strength group exceeds the correlation for the low growth-need strength group) were then summed to compute the test statistic. 13. The z statistic is computed as follows: Z = Z1±Z2; Oz1±z2. Wher the denominator is the approximate standard deviation of the difference z1-z2. 14. The 0.10 confidence level can be accepted if it is deemed acceptable to be certain 90 percent of the time that a difference exists between the correlation coefficients. 15. The authors thank Donna Muncey for contributing this point. 16. Interestingly, when the sample is broken down into high and low higher-order need strength groups, the relationships between role conflict and general is higher than the relationship between role conflict and dissatisfaction for two groups: high higher-order need strength elementary teachers and low higher-order need strength secondary teachers. 17. Role overload also increases general among high growth need strength teachers but to a lesser extent. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to maintain that reductions in role overload would only reduce for teachers with low higher-order need strength. 18. Support for the relationship between role and intentions to stay was found in this study primarily at the elementary level. 19. The authors thank Vivienne Collinson for making this point. Her research on exemplary teachers suggests that exemplary teachers often have jobs with characteristics of enriched work early in their careers. They are often in collaborative work arrangements where they interact with more experienced teachers to improve instruction. This early work experience appears to give exemplary teachers breadth of perspective, that encourages them to use and value a variety of their own skills in teaching (see Collinson and Howey, 1995). References Bacharach, S. and Mitchell, S. (1982), ``The quality of working life of professional, technical, and scientific employees of New York State'', a report prepared for the Joint Labor- Management Committee on Professional Development and QWL, NYSSILR, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P. and Conley, S.C. (1990), ``Work processes, role conflict and role overload'', Work and Occupations, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 199-228. Bacharach, S.B., Bauer, S.C. and Conley, S. (1986), ``Organizational analysis of : the case of elementary and secondary schools'', Work and Occupations, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 7-32. Barnabe, C. and Burns, M. (1994), ``Teachers' job characteristics and motivation'', Educational Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 171-85. Beehr, T.A. (1995), Psychological Stress in the Workplace, Routledge, London.

Beehr, T.A. and Newman, J.E. (1978), ``Job, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: a facet analysis, model, and literature review'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 665-99. Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T. and Taber, T.D. (1976), ``Relationship of to individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 41-7. Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T. and Taber, T.D. (1977), ``The relationship between higher order need strength and sensitivity to environmental variations'', a paper presented to the Midwestern Psychological Association Convention, Chicago, IL, May. Belasco, J.A. and Alutto, J.A. (1972), ``Decisional participation and teacher satisfaction'', Educational Administration Quarterly, pp. 44-58. Benson, J. (1983), ``The bureaucratic nature of schools and teacher job satisfaction'', The Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 137-48. Cammann, C., Jenkins, G.D., Lawler, E.E. III and Nadler, D. (1973), ``Productivity field experiments behavioral evaluation component'', Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. Caplan, R. (1971), ``Organizational and individual strain'', Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, University Microfilm, No. 72-14882. Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S. and French, J.R.P. Jr., Harrison, R.V. and Pinneaut, S.R. (1975), ``Job demands and worker health: main effects and occupational differences'', US Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Collinson, V. (1994), Teachers as Learners, Austin/Winfield, San Francisco, CA. Collinson, V. and Howey, K.R. (1995), ``Cornerstones of a collaborative culture: Professional development and preservice teacher preparation'', Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21-31. Conley, S.C., Bacharach, S.B. and Bauer, S. (1989), ``The school work environment and teacher career dissatisfaction'', Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 58-81. Conover, W.J. (1971), Practical Nonparametric Statistics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), ``Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory'', Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 250-79. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. House, J.S. (1981), Work Stress and Social Support, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Jackson, S.E. and 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, Vol. 36, pp. 16-78. Jex, S.M. and Beehr, T.A. (1991), ``Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of work-related '', in Ferris, G.R. and Rowland, K.M. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 311-65. Kahn, R. (1980), ``Conflict, ambiguity, and overload: three elements in job '', in Katz, D., Kahn, R. and Adams, J. (Eds), The Study of Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 418-28. Kahn, R.L. and Quinn, R.P. (1970), ``Role : a framework for analysis'', in McLean, A. (Ed.), Occupational Mental Health, Rand-McNally, New York, NY. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P. Snoek, J.D. (1964), Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY. Langner, T.S. (1962), ``A twenty-two item screening score of psychiatric symptoms indicating impairment'', Journal of Health and Human Behavior, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 269-75. 199

Journal of Educational Administration 38,2 200 Leong, C.S., Furnham, A. and Cooper, C.L. (1996), ``The moderating effect of organizational commitment on the occupational outcome relationship'', Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 10, pp. 1345-63. Lortie, D. C. (1986), ``Teacher status in Dade County: a case of structural strain'', Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 568-75. Martin, J.K. and Shehan, C.L. (1989), ``Education and job satisfaction: the influences of gender, wage-earning status, and job values'', Work and Occupations, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 184-99. Maslow, A.H. (1943), ``A theory of human motivation'', Psychological Review, Vol. 50, pp. 370-96. Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York, NY. McCormick, J. (1997), ``Occupational of teachers: Biographical differences in a large school system'', Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 18-38. McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw Hill, New York, NY. Mowday, R., Porter, L. and Steers, R. (1982), Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY. Mueller, C.W., Wallace, J.E. and Price, J.L. (1992), ``Employee commitment: resolving some issues'', Work and Occupations, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 211-36. Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J. and Wasserman, W. (1996), Applied Linear Statistical Models, Irwin, Chicago, IL. Newton, T. and Keenan, A. (1987), ``Role re-examined: an investigation of role predictors'', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 40, pp. 346-68. Pastor, M.C. and Erlandson, D.A. (1982), ``A study of higher order need strength and job satisfaction in secondary public school teachers'', The Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 172-83. Pierce, C.M.B. and Molloy, G.N. (1990), ``Psychological and biographical differences between secondary school teachers experiencing high and low levels of burnout'', British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 37-51. Pounder, D. (1998), ``Teacher teams: redesigning teachers' work for collaboration'', in Pounder, D.G. (Ed.), Restructuring Schools for Collaboration: Promises and Pitfalls, SUNY Press, Albany, NY, pp. 65-88. Rizzo, J., House, R. and Lertzman, S. (1970), ``Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 150-63. Rogers, R.E., Li, E.Y. and Shani, A.B. (1987), ``Perceptions of organizational among US military officers in Germany'', Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 189-207. Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1977), ``An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 427-56. Schuler, R.S., Aldag, R.J. and Brief, A.P. (1977), ``Role conflict and ambiguity: a scale analysis'', Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 20, pp. 111-28. Scott, W.R. (1992), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Starbuck, W.H. (1983), ``Organizations as action generators'', American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 91-102. Sutton, R.I. (1984), ``Job among primary and secondary schoolteachers: its relationship to ill-being'', Work and Occupations, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 7-28. Turner, J., Nock, S.L. and Toscano, D. J. (1989), ``Employee ownership and perceptions of work: the effect of an employee stock ownership plan'', Work and Occupations, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 26-42. Veenman, S. (1984), ``Perceived problems of beginning teachers'', Review of Educational Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 143-78.

Further reading Erlandson, D.A. and Pastor, M.C. (1981), ``Teacher motivation, job satisfaction, and alternatives ± directions for principals'', NASSP Bulletin, pp. 5-9. Etzioni, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and their Correlates, Free Press of Glencoe, New York, NY. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), ``Development of the job diagnostic survey'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 159-70. Lortie, D.C. (1975), Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Malen, B., Murphy, M. J. and Hart, A.W. (1987), ``Restructuring teacher compensation systems: an analysis of three incentive strategies'', in Alexander, K. and Monk, D.H. (Eds), Attracting and Compensating Teachers, Eighth Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp. 91-142. Porter, L., Lawler, E.E. and Hackman, J.R. (1975), Behavior in Organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 201