Good day Gail (funny that's my name too). From my work managing the roll out of re-organizations, we always start with basic things like workflows, functional org charts and revised position descriptions. The key tho is engaging people in the development of these. They know their work better than anyone brought from the outside - they often highlight gaps, overlaps and deficiencies. In the process of documenting, the loose ends get tidied up. It's not that sexy but it is very effective. One of the keys, of course, is engaging everyone - one of the foundational principles of managing change. Effectiveness is a function of engagement - if I understand and agree to the new social contract that is my "job" I will make the choice to do it (or move on - a different solution of sorts).
If someone else does this (defines the role and working arrangements) and 'communicates' it to them, you get the exact effect of "Who moved my cheese" - the invisible hand controlling the insignificant little mice. This is the way NOT to do it.
When I have worked with teams that complained about "role clarity" they were usually right - not only were their own roles unclear, how they were supposed to connect and function with others was unclear - this created a compounding effect whereby each node negotiated their own interpretation.
In cases where clear definition DOES exist but people still complain then it is a different issue(s) at work. We have run walkthrus, 'what if' scenarios as well as mini-town halls to build confidence, capability and build precedents in new roles and processes. Occasionally we have brought in a training module (e.g. team communication) to provide a common language, framework and experience for problem solving. And when that did not achieve full effect we have also brought short term coaches (usually for leaders who struggled in a new paradigm).
Good luck with it. Gail
p.s. feel free to connect if you’d like to discuss gailseverini@symphini.com