Clarifying roles: what a manager can actually resolve
When a case stalls between several people in charge, asking everyone to clarify their role seems reasonable. The more precise managerial question is: when can clarification help, and when do conflicting demands require a decision instead?
What the literature establishes
John R. Rizzo, Robert J. House and Sidney I. Lirtzman (1970, Administrative Science Quarterly) distinguish two dimensions: role ambiguity, where expectations and responsibilities are unclear, and role conflict, where demands are incompatible. Their work proposes instruments for measuring these dimensions separately. For a team manager, this distinction helps avoid treating every coordination problem as a simple lack of information.
Two difficulties requiring different responses
Susan E. Jackson and Randall S. Schuler (1985, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) synthesise research on these two dimensions and their relationships with work characteristics, affective reactions and behaviours. Their meta-analysis identifies negative associations with job satisfaction, among other findings, while emphasising that relationships vary across the variables examined. It suggests distinguishing the need to know what is expected from the actual possibility of meeting all expectations.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that a better job description is enough to solve the problem. Yet an employee may understand perfectly well that they must process a case faster while complying with checks that require additional time. In that situation, the manager's task is less about explaining instructions than securing a decision on priorities and establishing who has the authority to make it. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
Much of the research synthesised relies on correlational data and self-reported perceptions, which limits causal conclusions. These studies therefore do not demonstrate that formally clarifying roles will, on its own, improve performance. Nor do they justify assuming that a frontline manager has sufficient authority to resolve a contradiction between two departments.
A practical check in Zurich
As part of SHR's « Management de proximité » programme, a proposed exercise for Zurich teams in financial services, insurance, tech or the European headquarters of international groups would be to log, over two weeks, every case requiring a decision on responsibility or priority. For each case, record whether the blockage concerns an unclear expectation or incompatible demands, then identify the decision-making authority and retain a record of the decision. The measure would be the proportion of these cases that, by the end of the period, have an explicit decision and a named owner for the next action, verifiable in the tracking tool. This result would document the ability to clarify or secure decisions on the situations recorded, without itself proving a productivity gain. To go further: explore the Frontline Management training in Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Frontline Management in Zurich
- frontline management
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich