We conducted a meta-analysis of correlations between role ambiguity and job performance and role conflict and job performance. Previous meta-analyses of these role constructs and performance relationships (e.g., Jackson & Schuler, 1985) were limited by small sample sizes and sparse reporting of reliability estimates in primary studies. The present study used a comprehensive database with a larger sample size and a distribution of interrater reliabilities to extend the previous findings. We also tested moderator hypotheses proposed but not conducted by Jackson and Schuler. Results revealed a negative relationship (r52.21) between role ambiguity and job performance with moderating influences due to job type and rating source. A negligible relationship (r52.07) was observed for role conflict and job performance, a finding consistent across job types and rating sources. Conclusions were that role ambiguity ought not to be dismissed as an unimportant variable in the job performance domain.

Federal statutes recommend the analysis of four job attributes as measures of job worth, and the National Academy of Sciences recommends using one job evaluation method across classifications in an organization. The results of this construct validity study showed that the correctness of evaluations based on the four factors is questionable, as is the use of a single method across classifications.