UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA

ROLE CONFLICT AND ROLE AMBIGUITY AMONG MALAYSIAN JOURNALISTS IN NEWSROOM

DECISION-MAKING

FARIDAH IBRAHIM

FPP L 1995 9

ROLE CONFLICT AND ROLE AMBIGUITY AMONG MALAYSIAN JOURNALISTS

IN NEWSROOM DECISION-MAKING

FARIDA H IBRAHIM

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITI PERTANIAN MALAYSIA

1995

ROLE CONFLICT AND ROLE AMBIGUITY AMONG MALAYSIAN JOURNALISTS I N NEWSROOM DECISION-MAKING

by

FARIDAH IBRAHIM

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfil lment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the

Centre for Extension and Continuing Education

Universiti Pertanian Malaysia

April, 1995

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Syukur Alhamdul l i l lah to Al lah (S.W.T.) for g iving me the strength ,

patience and confidence in completing this work.

Many debts of thanks are owed for this d issertation.

For the intellectua l challenge and excitement they provided , the entire

staff members of the Centre for Extension and Continu ing Education (PPPL) ,

Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (UPM) m ust be acknowledged .

The Chairman of Supervisory Committee for this work, Professor Dr. Hj .

Su laiman Mohd. Yassin contributed not only g reat understanding and patience,

but a lso the core of the ideas at every stage of this research. Appreciation i s

extended to my former advisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hj . Mohd . Fadzil lah Kamsah

who in it ial ly helped gu ide my research interest i nto these l ines.

D r. Hj . Md. Salleh Hj. Hassan , Assoc. Prof. Dato' Dr. Hj . Mohd. N asir

Ismail and Dr. Hj . Turiman Suandi acted as committee members for th is work.

Their continued comments and criticisms, not to mention their psychological

support, have added immensely to this work. I would l ike to thank especial ly

D r. Turiman and Mdm. Saodah Wok for their gu idance d uring the analysis

stage.

I am a lso particularly grateful to M r. Mei Rochjat Darmawiredja , my

g raduate colleague i n UPM, for h is help in data cod ing and computer work.

i i

Earl ier, at the School of Mass Communication and Journal ism,

U niversity of Minnesota-Twin Cities, USA where I had undergone a one-year

coursework for my doctoral programme, my interest in research had been

sparked by Prof. Dr. Daniel B. Wackman (my Advisor in U niversity of

M innesota), Asst. Prof. Dr. AI Tims, Prof. Dr. Ph il l ip J. Tichenor and a lso my

professors from School of Speech Communication , P rof. D r. George Shapiro

and Asst. Prof. D r. Marshal l Scott-Poole.

The Head of Communication Department, Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia (UKM) , Assoc. Prof. Dr. Samsudin A. Rahim and col leagues here in

the Department, have been u nderstanding of the demands of research and

writ ing .

I wou ld l ike to thank the Malaysian government, U KM and UPM for the

financial support and opportunities they had g iven me to u ndergo this

programme.

I would l ike to g rateful ly acknowledge my journal ism colleagues, M r.

M us Chair i l Saman i from Department of Communication, U KM , M r. Abdu l

Razak Mohaideen and m y h usband , M r. Mohd. Raj ib Ab. Ghani from the

School of Mass Communication, MARA I nstitute of Technology and their

journal ism students for their help in data gathering. I would l ike to thank Dr.

Chan Swee Heng for her editoria l suggestions.

i i i

My thanks are a lso extended to M r. Khal id Mohamed, Assistant Chief

Editor, Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd . ; M r. Samani Mohd. Amin , Editorial Manager,

The Star Publ ication; M r. Meor Kamaru l Shahid, Editor Harian Metro; Ms. Nurul

Afida Kamaludin from BERNAMA and all the journal ists in the selected media

organisations for their cooperation i n providing the needed knowledge about

local journal ism.

I am also thankful to Mdm. Khiriyah Ahmad for helping in formatting the

entire d raft of the d issertation .

My fel low graduate friends at PPPL, U PM especial ly Mei, Yusof, Asiah,

Syd, Hajjah Norsiah, N orhara , Vanaja and many others a re to be recogn ised

for their suggestions and assistance. And a lso my thanks are extended to my

friends in Minnesota, Zarina and Zul , Aina and M ike, Sujatha, Junko, Angela

and my Malaysian brothers and s isters who have helped to make Minnesota

meaningfu l to me and my fam ily.

My mother, Rahimah, b rothers and sisters stood behind me a l l through

my work, a lways encouraging and helpfu l .

I would l ike to express my deepest appreciation to my husband, Raj ib ,

for h is contin uous intellectua l challenge and moral support ; and to my fou r

adorable chi ldren - Aidid , Affan , Asyran a n d Afiqah - for their u nconditiona l

love.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i

L IST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

L IST OF F IGU RES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi i

ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x i i i

ABSTRAK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

CHAPTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 1 I INTRODUCTION. . . . ......... ....... ................. ................. 1

I I

Background of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ........ 1 The Context of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Mass Media System in Malaysia: Issues and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Objectives of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Significance of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ ..... 16 Scope and Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 17

Defin ition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Organisation of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

LITERATURE REViEW . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . .. . . 24

An Overview of Role Confl ict and Role Ambigu ity (Role Stress). .................................. 25

Role Theory and Concepts . . . . . . . ..................... 25 Role Expectation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Role Sending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Received Role. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. ... ......... 29 Role Behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Role Confl ict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Role Ambigu ity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Role Stress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

v

Page

Role Stress Theory and General Stress Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Role Episode Model . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

A Model of Stress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 A Model of Causes, Types and Consequences of Stress. . . . . . . . ... ......................... 42

Antecedents of Stress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Newsroom and Decision-making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Concepts on Decision-making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 45 Decision-making Process i n the Newsroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................... 49

Decision-making in Malaysian Newsroom .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Role Stress in the Newsroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ....... 58

Factors Associated with Role Confl ict and Role Ambiguity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Concepts of Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Nature of Tasks and Job Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Participation in Decision-making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Communication and I nterpersonal Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Research on Role Confl ict and Role Ambigu ity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Organisational Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Personal Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

I nterpersonal Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 96

I I I RESEARCH METHODOLOGy... .. . . . . ................. . .. . . . . . . . 99 Conceptual Framework of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Statement of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 104

Population and Sample.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Sampling Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Description of Survey I nstrument. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ......... 112

Measurement of Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Role Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Participation i n Decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Participation in Newsroom Task Decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Leadersh ip Behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Dead l ine Pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Task Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 120

Communication Relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

VI

Page

Interpersonal Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 22 Years of Working Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 23 Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 23 Years of Formal Education Completed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 23 Salary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 23

Pre-testing of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 23 Rel iabi l ity Test of the Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 24 Procedu re for Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 26 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 28

Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 29 Pearson Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 29 Mu ltiple Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 30 Discriminant Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 1

The Level of Sign ificance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 1

IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 32 Characteristics of the Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 32

Job Status, Gender, Marita l Status and Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 33 Race, Educational Attainment, Years of Formal Education and Salary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 34 Length of Work in Current Organisation, Working Experience and Years of Holding Current Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 37 Departmental or Job Transfer, Promotion and Propensity to Leave for Another Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 39 Perception of Journalists regarding the Nature of their Organisation's Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 40 Factors Lead ing to Role Stress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 42

Levels of Perceived Role Confl ict and Role Ambiguity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Relationsh ips with Research Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 8

Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 48 Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 62 Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 67 Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 71 Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 74

vii

Page

Sign ificant Pred ictors of Role Confl ict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 77 Sign ificant Predictors of Role Ambigu ity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 85 D iscriminant Variables of Role Confl ict Perceived among Journal ists i n Newsroom Decision-making. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 92 Discriminant Variables of Role Ambiguity Perceived among Journal ists in Newsroom Decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 97 Summary of Results . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... '" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Research Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Statement of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 0 Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 1

Respondents' Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 1 Levels of Perceived Role Conflict and Role Ambigu ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 3 Relationships with Research Variables . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 4 Discriminant Variables of Role Conflict Perceived by Journalists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 7 Discriminant Variables of Role Ambigu ity Perceived by Journal ists . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . 2 1 8

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 8 I mpl ications and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

I mpl ications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Recommendations for Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . 233

BIBLIOGRAPHy.............................. ...... ................ ............. ... ........ 237 APPENDiCES........... ...... . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

A B C D

Questionnaire i n Engl ish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire i n Bahasa Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Add itional Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

249 263 277 288

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

vi i i

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1 Sample Size and Response Rates from

Page

Selected Organ isations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1

2 Test of Rel iabi l ity using Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 26

3 Distribution of Respondents by Job Status, Gender, Marita l Status and Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 35

4 Distribution of Respondents by Race, Educationa l Attainment, Years of Formal Education and Salary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 36

5 Distribution of Respondents by Length of Work in Current Organisation, Working Experience and Years of Holding Current Position.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 38

6 Distribution of Respondents by Number of Job Transfer, Promotion a nd Propensity to Leave for Another Profession.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 40

7 Distribution of Respondents by the Perceived Nature of Organisation's Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 1 4 1

8 Factors Lead ing to Role Stress as Perceived by Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 44

9 Levels of Role Confl ict and Role Ambig uity in Newsroom Decision-making as Perceived by Jou rnal ists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 45

1 0 Frequency Distribution of Levels of Role Confl ict and Role Ambiguity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 1 47

1 1 Correlation Coefficients between Role Confl ict

1 2

and some Selected Organisational Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Correlation Coefficients between Role Ambiguity and some Selected Organ isational Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 56

ix

Page

1 3 Correlation Coefficients between Role Confl ict and some Selected Personal Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 63

1 4 Correlation Coefficients between Role Ambigu ity and some Selected Personal Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 68

1 5 Correlation Coefficients between Role Conflict and some Selected Interpersonal Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 73

1 6 Corre lation Coefficients between Role Ambig uity and some Selected Interpersonal Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 75

1 7 Mu ltiple Regression between Role Conflict and Overal l Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 79

1 8 Mu ltiple Regression between Role Confl ict and some Selected Organ isational Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 1 80

1 9 Mu ltiple Regression between Role Confl ict and some Selected Personal Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 1

20 Mu ltiple Reg ression between Role Conflict and some Selected Interpersonal Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 82

2 1 Stepwise Multiple Regression between Role Confl ict and some Selected Independent Variab les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 84

22 Mu ltiple Regression between Role Ambiguity and Overa l l I ndependent Variab les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 86

23 Multiple Regression between Role Ambiguity and and some Selected Organisational Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 88

24 Mu ltiple Regression between Role Ambigu ity and some Selected Personal Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 89

25 Mu ltiple Regression between Role Ambiguity and some Selected Interpersonal Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 89

x

26

27

28

29

30

31

Stepwise M ultiple Regression between Role Ambigu ity and some Selected I ndependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary data for Discriminant Analysis in the Role Conflict Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Discriminant Analysis: Classification Results of Cases accord ing to Role Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary data for Discriminant Analysis i n the Role Ambiguity Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Discriminant Analysis: C lassification Results of Cases accord ing to Role Ambigu ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I ntercorrelations among Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Page

1 92

1 95

1 96

200

201

288

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1

2

3

4

A Model of the Role Episode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Model of Role Episode. A Theoretical Model of Factors I nvolved in the Taking of Organ isationa l Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conceptual Framework of Perceived Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Experienced by Journalists in Newsroom Decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Modified Conceptua l Framework of Perceived Role Conflict and Role Ambigu ity Experienced by Journal ists in Newsroom Decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .

xi i

Page

27

39

1 02

235

Abstract of dissertation submitted to the Senate of U niversiti Pertanian Malaysia in partial fulfi l lment of the requ i rements

for the degree of Doctor of Ph i losophy

ROLE CONFLICT AND ROLE AMBIGUITY

AMONG MALAYSIAN JOURNALISTS I N NEWSROOM DECISION-MAKING

By

FARIDAH IBRAHIM

Apri l , 1 995

Chairman Professor Sulaiman Mohd. Yass in , Ph.D.

Facu lty Centre for Extension and Continu ing Education

The main objective of the study was to determine the relationship

betwee n some selected independent variab les with role conflict and role

ambiguity perceived by Malaysian journalists in newsroom decision-making.

The study was carried out among 226 randomly selected journalists

from eight Malaysian print media organisations and a national news agency.

A survey research method was employed and self-administered and

structured questionnaires were used to collect data. Descriptive and

inferential statistics, namely, frequency and percentage, Pearson's correlation

coefficients, multiple regression and d iscriminant analysis were used for data

analysis.

xi i i

Apart from revealing that the perceived levels of role confl ict and role

ambigu ity among the Malaysian print and news agency journal ists were at

moderate levels, the results of the study a lso showed that the level of role

stress was i nfluenced by some organisational , personal and i nterpersonal

factors. Findings from the study suggested that the level of role confl ict and

role ambigu ity among journal ists cou ld be made less pronounced if media

managers would g ive due consideration to some of the critical variables

examined in the study. The study found that the perceived levels of both role

confl ict and role ambiguity among the journalists were negatively related to

the level of participation in newsroom decision-making, the level of partici­

pation in task decision, nature of task characteristics, leadership supportive

behaviour and positively related to structure-oriented leadership behaviour.

Role conflict was also found to be positively related to the deadl ine pressure

experienced by the journal ists in their newsrooms.

The salary of the journalists as wel l as the years of working experience

that journal ists had in the related field were a lso found to be related to the

levels of role conflict and role ambigu ity. The level of interpersonal trust,

respect and l iking as well as the communication relationships between

journal ists and their superiors were a lso related to journal ists' perceived role

stress. The study revealed that the level of role confl ict among journal ists

was fou nd to be h igher in those who had h igh deadl ine p ressure, low work

experience, low regard for their task characteristics and low participation i n

task d ecision; whi le the level of role ambiguity tended to be h ig her among

xiv

those who had weak interpersonal relationships with their superiors , low

regard for their task characteristics, low participation in decision-making and

task decision, were younger in age and those who perceived their leaders to

be more structure-oriented and less supportive.

xv

Abstrak d issertasi yang d ikemukakan kepada Senat Universiti Pertanian Ma laysia sebagai memenuhi seba hagian daripada

keperluan untuk Ijazah Doktor Falsafah .

KON FLIK PERANAN DAN KEKABURAN PERANAN 01 KALANGAN WARTAWAN DI MALAYSIA OALAM BUATPUTUSAN OJ BILIK BERITA

Oleh

FARIOAH IBRAHIM

Apri l , 1 995

Pengerusi Profesor Sulaiman Mohd. Yassin , Ph .D .

Fakulti Pusat Pengembangan dan Pend idikan Lanjutan

Objektif utama kaj ian in i adalah untuk menentukan hubungan antara

beberapa angkubah bebas terpi l ih dengan konfl ik peranan dan kekaburan

peranan di kalangan wartawan di Malaysia dalam proses buatputusan di bi l ik

berita.

Kaj ian tersebut telah d ija lankan d i kalangan 226 orang responden

yang dip i l ih secara rambang dari lapan buah organisasi media cetak dan

sebuah agensi berita nasional. Untuk mengumpul data, kaj ian tersebut

menggunakan kaedah tinjauan dan borang soal selidik berstruktur yang

d ijawab sendiri o leh responden. Statistik deskriptif dan inferensi seperti

kekerapan dan peratus, korelasi Pearson, kaedah regresi dan d iskriminan

digunakan u ntuk anal isis data .

xvi

Oi samping mendedahkan bahawa tahap persepsi konflik peranan dan

kekaburan peranan d i kalangan wartawan media cetak dan agensi berita d i

Malaysia adalah d i peringkat sederhana, hasil kaj ian juga menunjukkan

bahawa tahap tekanan peranan in i d ipengaruh i oleh beberapa faktor

organ isasi , peribad i dan antaraperibadi. Hasil kaj ian menunjukkan bahawa

tahap konflik peranan dan kekaburan peranan boleh d iusahakan supaya tidak

beg itu ketara sekiranya para pengurus media memberi perti mbangan

sewajarnya kepada beberapa angkubah yang d ikaj i dalam kaj ian tersebut.

Kajian mendapati tahap persepsi konflik peranan dan kekaburan peranan d i

kalangan wartawan mempunyai hubungan negatif dengan tahap penyertaan

da lam buatputusan d i bi l ik berita, tahap penyertaan dalam proses

buatputusan berkaitan dengan tugas, ciri-ciri tug as, dan tingkahlaku

kepimpinan yang bercorak kerjasama, serta mempunyai h ubungan positif

dengan tingkahlaku kepimpinan berorientasikan struktur. Konfl ik peranan

juga d idapati mempunyai hubungan positif dengan batasan waktu yan g

d i hadapi oleh wartawan d i bi l ik berita.

Pendapatan serta pengalaman bekerja dalam bidang kewartawanan

d i kalangan wartawan juga mempunyai hubungka it dengan tahap persepsi

konflik peranan dan kekaburan peranan. Tahap perhubungan antaraperibadi

seperti kepercayaan , kesukaan dan penghormatan serta perhubungan

komunikasi antara wartawan dengan ketua, mempunyai hubungan d engan

tahap konflik peranan dan kekaburan peranan d i kalangan wartawan . Kaj ian

tersebut menunjukkan bahawa tahap konfl ik peranan d idapati lebih t inggi d i

xvi i

kalangan wartawan yang menghadapi batasan waktu yang terla lu tingg i ,

mempunyai kurang pengalaman bekerja dalam bidang kewartawanan ,

tanggapan rendah terhadap ciri-ciri tug as dan tahap penyertaan yang rendah

dalam proses buatputusan yang berkaitan dengan tug as. Manakala tahap

kekaburan peranan d idapati lebih t inggi d i kalangan wartawan yang

mempunyai hubungan antaraperibadi yang rendah dengan ketua, tanggapan

yang rendah terhadap ciri-ciri tug as, tahap penyertaan yang rendah dalam

proses buatputusan d i b i l ik berita dan buatputusan dalam ha l-hal berkaitan

tugas, lebih muda dari segi usia dan mereka yang menanggap ketua-ketua

lebih berorientasikan struktur dan kurang bersikap kerjasama.

xvi i i

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

The Context of the Study

Stress on the job is a real, growing problem. Not only is it detrimental

to industry, it is also expensive in human terms. And for an ind ustry such as

the m ass com munication particularly the media org anisations that a lready

have a reputation as being stressful , it is a problem that needs attention

(Endres and Wearden, 1 99 1 ) .

Given the fast-paced, constantly changing n ature of the media, one

might g uess that the best structure for an information company would be one

which is a stable and very organised , where work moves in a predictab le,

timely fashion conducive to the daily deadline demands. However, modern

management thinking suggests that the best format to accomplish the goals

of a progressive media organisation should not be q uite so formal (Lavine

and Wackman, 1 988).

Media managers and leaders, according to Lavine and Wackman

(1988), have to deal with a structure that m ust accomplish two somewhat

1

2

contradicting objectives: ( 1 ) producing media products in an orderly fashion

to meet deadl ines and (2) producing media products that are fresh,

innovative, timely and informative as wel l as messages that are of

high-qual ity. Whilst the first objective requires that media organisations fol low

a formal kind of organisational structure, the second objective requires that

employees be g iven some freedom from a rig id work schedu le .

This fundamental d istinction between the med ia and other industries

is the factor that g ives i nformation organisations and thei r managers and

workers major challenges. Accord ing to Lavine and Wackman ( 1 988: 20)

besides the enormous dead l ine pressure that media managers and

journalists have to encounter everyday, there are a lso these chal lenges that

need dai ly attention :

1 . Publ ic policies as wel l as societal, lega l, regu latory and ethical l imits that are d ifferent, more visible, and often more restrictive than those facing managers in nonmedia i ndustries;

2 . The production of a product with content that is brand new each time it reaches the audience market or advertiser market;

3 . Managing a workforce whose most important employees are often headstrong and creative, possessing their own ideas about qual ity - employees who often have more al legiance to their profession than to their employers; and

4. Making decisions in industries where tradit ional l ines of demarcation are rapid ly d isappearing .

3

It is the very complexity of these constraints and responsibil ities within

the media organ isations that place med ia managers and journalists u nder

stressful cond itions (Endres and Wearden , 1 992; Cook and Banks, 1 993).

S uch is the nature of the media organisations that a s l ig ht occurrence of

unexpected important events can greatly enhance tension i n the newsroom.

Tension before deadl ines is something that media managers and journal ists

have to deal with everyday.

There are various departments in the med ia organisations which a re

i nvolved in various functions and decision-making. But one of the most

important department, where crucia l decisions are made dai ly, is the

newsroom, which is considered the l ifel ine of a media organisation (Teel and

Taylor, 1 983).

According to Epstein ( 1 973) the dai ly agenda of reports produced by

the media organisations and labelled as "news" is by no means a p roduct of

chance events; it is actual ly the result of crucial decisions made in the

newsrooms. The process of selecting news is a lso known as news decision­

making p rocess and it is also a task made in a hurry due to dead l ine

pressu re .

News decision-making in the newsroom comes in various forms which

i nclude news evaluation and selection by the news staff; the expenditure of

time and resources for news gathering; the assigning of reporters to specific

events; and the al location of space for the presentation of news. These are

amon g the numerous tasks that have to be undertaken by reporters and

editors i n their roles as journal ists.

4

The numerous tasks and decisions that need to be handled within the

enormous dead line pressure in the newsroom, are major reasons that place

media managers and journalists under constant stress especial ly job-related

stress and role stress.

I n making news decisions, news organisations basically need to

consider their own goals and requ i rements for surviving i n a competitive

environment. Decisions made will be based on key decision makers, namely,

the editors and editoria l managers , who wil l make decisions consistent with

the organisation's overrid ing interests. These decisions will in turn shape its

product - the news (Epstein, 1973).

Although the key decisions a re in the hands of top editors, from the

author's personal experience, it appears that many reporters are also

involved in in itial decision-making at specific stages such as gathering, writing

and editing news. Thus, both editors and reporters have decision roles that

g ive them some amount of autonomy within the realms of the journal istic

profession.

Stud ies by scholars have shown that journalists have strong needs for

g reater participation i n news decisions (Epstein , 1973; Johnstone et al.,

1976; Gans, 1980; Joseph, 1982; Adams and Fish , 1987; Gaziano and

Coulson , 1988; Powers, 1991).

Various studies on participation also showed that lack of participation

can be a major source of stress (French et al. , 1960 ; French and

Caplan, 1972; Jackson , 1983; Pearson, 1991). These studies have shown that

5

lack of opportunities to participate in the decision process can create strain

or stress in the person and even adversely affect satisfaction and productivity.

Med ia organisations in Malaysia especial ly the infl uential national

da i l ies s uch as The New Straits Times, Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian

and The Star, the government news agency, BERNAMA, and the two

television stations, Radio Television Malaysia (RTM) and TV3 are regarded

by Malaysians as the media that p lay the most sign ificant role in providing

information for decision makers and the attentive public (Lent, 1974).

If journal ists of these organisations share certain p refe rences in the

interpretation of their roles in the newsroom decision process, and if their

p references do not represent what they actual ly p ractise in rea lity, we can

conclude that there are some incongruencies in their role expectations which

wi l l result in role stress. Journal ists under stress may feed erroneous

information in the news, possibly causing inappropriate decisions and policies

to be made by the Malaysian government and its people.

Furthermore, accord ing to a renowned Malaysian journalist, A. Samad

(1991) the defin ition of news itself is sti l l rather vague and there l ies a wide

area of ambiguity. Since there is no hard and fast rule to help journalists

make decisions in the newsroom, they i nvariably have to depend more on

their good sense and judgement, with the interests of their organisational

goals in mind.

According to the role theory, when the behaviours expected of a n

ind ividual by others i n the organ isations a re inconsistent or incongruent, he

or she wil l be in a state of role confl ict and wil l experience stress , becomes