Reducing the harmful effect of role ambiguity on turnover intentions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate how employees’ perceptions of role ambiguity might increase their turnover intentions and how this harmful effect might be buffered by employees’ access to relevant individual (innovation propensity), relational (goodwill trust), and organizational (procedural justice) resources. Uncertainty due to unclear role descriptions decreases in the presence of these resources, so employees are less likely to respond to this adverse work situation in the form of enhanced turnover intentions. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative data came from a survey of employees of a large organization in the distribution sector. Findings Role ambiguity enhances turnover intentions, but this effect diminishes at higher levels of innovation propensity, goodwill trust, and procedural justice. Research limitations/implications The findings reveal several contingencies that attenuate the positive effect of role ambiguity on the desire to leave the organization. However, this study relies on the same respondents to assess all the focal variables, and it lacks a direct measure of the mechanisms by which the contingent factors mitigate the relationship between role ambiguity and turnover intentions. Practical implications Organizations that fail to provide clear role information to employees can counter the resulting uncertainty with relevant personal, relational, and organizational resources. Originality/value This investigation shows how employees’ negative reactions to role ambiguity (turnover intentions) can be mitigated by three uncertainty-reducing resources: personal joy from developing new ideas, the extent to which relationships with colleagues is trustworthy, and perceptions that organizational procedures are fair.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it