Job Malaise? Is Role Clarity to Blame?
Before we begin, please consider giving us some feedback on The Nelson Pages! We value your feedback and will use it to improve our newsletter! Looking forward to hearing your feedback!
Is this job doable? Have you ever asked yourself this question? We have!
There might be a multitude of reasons why you would ask yourself this question. Money, stress, personal reward, mission creep, leadership challenges, scope of work, personal joy, and much more. Most of us at some point in time have likely asked ourselves, “Is this job doable?” or more specifically “Is this the job I want to do?”
If we reframe the question, “Is this job doable?” to “What is my role in this organization?”, immediately, we begin to consider an age-old challenge in the workplace: Role Clarity. Most of us know that role clarity is a significant driver of employee retention, satisfaction, and productivity. However, most of us are probably thinking about how to design, implement, and sustain role clarity in the wrong ways. In our efforts to provide better role clarity for our direct reports, perhaps we are solving for the wrong things.
So what is role clarity exactly? Why is it important? What actions should we take to create stronger role clarity?
First, we should define our terms. For our purposes here, we define role clarity as the comprehensive understanding by an employee of key responsibilities, expectations, resources, success criteria, conflicts, and task priorities. Given this definition, your instinct might be to draft criteria for each of the six items listed in our definition. But resist the urge and maintain an open mind—for now.
Role clarity challenges are not new. In fact, one of the oldest peer-reviewed research studies on role clarity can be found in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. In “Role Clarity, Need for Clarity, Satisfaction, Tension, and Withdrawal,” a 1971 research study of 156 registered nurses, Thomas Lyons found that poor role clarity was correlated with high turnover, and strong role clarity was correlated with satisfaction–especially those individuals with a high need for clarity.
Experience has taught us that many managers walk around with at least two common “myths” about role clarity.
Myth #1: Role clarity is the sole responsibility of the manager.
Reality: While managers must facilitate clarity for others, direct reports should also actively engage in the process of collaborating on their job design, communicating concerns about “job doability” and aligning their strengths to the evolving goals of the organization. The manager should help the direct report facilitate this process with care, respect, and generosity.
Myth #2: My role is fixed, aligned to the job description, and never changes.
Reality: All roles are constantly shifting and evolving (in both big ways and small ways). These changes are influenced by team goals, individual growth, changing contexts, and much more. Treating a role as static undermines the opportunities for adaptation and innovation.
Leveraging these myths, and others mistakes we have made in the past, coupled with role clarity research from Lyons (1971) and many others, we argue that managers should maintain a high level of focus around work clarity and role clarity—not role clarity alone.
Bakker and Demerouti (2007) outline a Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model that describes how role clarity, a macro-level understanding of a job with a focus on responsibilities and expectations should be paired with work clarity, a micro-level understanding of task with a focus on prioritization and execution. Oftentimes, managers will focus on one level (i.e., role clarity) and will not give appropriate attention to the other level (i.e., work clarity) - or the other way around.
Instead, managers should ensure they are attending to both macro and micro levels of understanding of a job. And thanks to Lyons’ research, we add the additional layer that managers should attend to both macro and micro levels (role clarity and work clarity) based on the clarity needs of their employee.
Visual representation of an image of role clarity plus the addition of work clarity as significant contributions to overall job resources.
So how do you ensure you are attending to both role clarity and work clarity based on each team member’s need for clarity?
Start with a clear role description. There should be a well-defined role outline for each of your team members that helps define responsibilities and expectations for their role.
Define the purpose or goal of a particular project. Check alignment between the project and the role. If there is a misalignment, talk about it with your direct report.
Assess your team member’s need for clarity for the project. Through conversation, unpack the level of clarity the team member might need to get started. Don’t skip this step!
Define a process to continuously get more clarity. Explicitly discuss how your direct report can access additional clarity from you and/or from others. What should they do? How might they structure their conversations with you and/or others?
Check in and adjust. Reflect and revisit the work clarity agreements throughout the project and role clarity agreements at least quarterly.
We know the power of role clarity. When we add work clarity and apply these concepts to the needs of our direct reports, we start to see results. In our own work, we have seen positive gains in satisfaction, retention, and outcomes. Try it and let us know what you think!
This month, our story provides an opportunity for us to consider role clarity and work clarity in a different context. As you read, think about the ways in which your current understanding of role clarity and work clarity contribute to your team’s success (or lack of success).
The Dinner Party of Confusion: In Search of Clarity
At Mrs. Waverly’s grand dinner party, the guests were delighted—crystal glasses sparkled, chandeliers glowed, and a feast was about to be served. Yet on the table, tension brewed.
The Knives, Forks, and Spoons were muttering among themselves.
“I don’t understand!” snapped a Knife, its blade glinting. “Am I cutting the meat, or am I spreading butter? Yesterday the Forks took over the roast entirely, and I just sat there, idle!”
A Fork rattled in frustration. “You think that’s bad? Half the time, I’m used to shovel peas. Other times, I’m stabbing salad or twisting spaghetti. What exactly is my role here?”
The Spoons clinked against each other. “Don’t get me started. One day I’m serving soup, the next I’m stirring coffee, and sometimes I’m scooping ice cream. How am I supposed to prioritize?”
The table erupted into metallic clamor. The utensils were in turmoil, a frenzy—their responsibilities blurred, expectations unclear, and priorities constantly shifting. The guests, meanwhile, stared awkwardly as dinner slowed to a halt.
Mrs. Waverly, sensing disaster, called for quiet. “Utensils, listen. You are confusing your role with your work. Let me explain.”
She pointed to the Knives. “Your role is about your overarching responsibility: to cut and spread. That’s your purpose. But your work is about this meal, tonight—cutting the roast first, buttering bread later.”
Turning to the Forks, she continued. “Your role is to spear, lift, and guide food to mouths. Tonight, prioritize peas after you help with the roast. That’s your work.”
Finally, she addressed the Spoons. “Your role is to scoop and cradle. Tonight’s work is soup first, dessert later. Your role establishes your place on the team. Your work offers direction.”
The utensils fell silent. They realized they had been treating every task as their entire role, rather than separating who they were from what needed to be done.
The Knives stopped arguing with Forks about the roast. The Forks stopped blaming Spoons for taking over dessert. And the Spoons, relieved, focused on serving the soup.
Dinner proceeded smoothly. Humans dined happily, and the utensils, at last, worked in harmony.
Case Study: GreenScape Landscaping–Ambition Meets Clarity
GreenScape Landscaping, a small but ambitious landscaping company based in the Midwest, has grown steadily over the past five years under the leadership of its founder and CEO, Danielle “Dani” Harper. Starting with a single truck and a handful of residential contracts, the company now employs ten full-time staff members who work on both residential and commercial landscaping projects. GreenScape has built a reputation for creative design, sustainable practices, and a customer-first approach.
Dani is a visionary entrepreneur with an eye for opportunity. She frequently introduces new ideas for projects—everything from urban rooftop gardens to eco-friendly irrigation systems and even branching into small-scale hardscaping. Her energy and innovative thinking have positioned GreenScape as a local leader in creative landscaping solutions. However, as the company has grown, Dani’s leadership style has created challenges for her team. While her vision is expansive, her communication about who is responsible for what, how priorities should be managed, and what success looks like has not kept pace with the company’s growth.
Employees at GreenScape find themselves struggling with the most fundamental question: What is my role here? Each of the ten employees has a job title—crew leader, designer, project manager, technician—but those labels mean little in practice. One week, a crew leader might be asked to draw up design sketches for a new client, while the next week that same person might be expected to supervise equipment maintenance or research eco-friendly suppliers. Similarly, designers are sometimes pulled into operational tasks, like scheduling crews or troubleshooting client billing questions.
The lack of clarity stems largely from Dani’s constant stream of new ideas. While innovation is valuable, employees feel that priorities are always shifting. A project manager noted, “Every Monday we seem to have a new direction. Last week, we were supposed to focus on winning more commercial contracts. This week, it’s all about expanding into rooftop gardens. I don’t know which one I’m supposed to give my time to.”
This uncertainty extends to day-to-day work execution. Employees report not having access to all the information they need to do their jobs well. Others feel uncertain about both formal expectations—like how their performance will be measured—and informal ones, such as how much initiative they should take without Dani’s approval. The result is confusion, frustration, and, in some cases, low morale.
The result is a workplace where employees often ask themselves, “Is this job doable?” The stress of shifting priorities, unclear expectations, and inconsistent communication has led some employees to question their future at GreenScape. Instead of focusing their energy on delivering excellent landscaping services, they expend significant effort trying to interpret what is expected of them and how to prioritize their work.
Case Study Questions:
In what ways is the CEO undermining her team’s ability to achieve clarity?
How do the myths about role clarity show up in this case, and how could they be addressed?
What steps can employees take to improve their own sense of role and work clarity?
How do role clarity and work clarity differ, and why are both necessary for effective performance at GreenScape?
What should Dani do first, second, and third to address the growing concern amongst her team?
That’s it for us this month!
We are seeking some feedback so please consider giving us some feedback on the newsletter!! Here is the link:
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands–Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Lyons, T. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 6, 99–110. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/33731/0000245.pdf?
