Ambivalence in Organizations: A Multilevel Approach

Abstract

T he experience of simultaneously positive and negative orientations toward a person, goal, task, idea, and such appears to be quite common in organizations, but it is poorly understood. We develop a multilevel perspective on ambivalence in organizations that demonstrates how this phenomenon is integral to certain cognitive and emotional processes and important outcomes. Specifically, we discuss the organizational triggers of ambivalence and the cognitive and emotional mechanisms through which ambivalence diffuses between the individual and collective levels of analysis. We offer an integrative framework of major responses to highly intense ambivalence (avoidance, domination, compromise, and holism) that is applicable to actors at the individual and collective levels. The positive and negative outcomes associated with each response, and the conditions under which each is most effective, are explored. Although ambivalence is uncomfortable for actors, it has the potential to foster growth in the actor as well as highly adaptive and effective behavior.

Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem

“…Our insights and measures can apply to these and other streams of research that focus on different reactions to conflicts and tensions in organizational and team contexts. Considering individual variance in paradox mindset can also help differentiate between positive and negative consequences of experiencing and expressing ambivalence (Ashforth, Rogers, Pratt, & Pradies, 2014;Rothman & Melwani, 2016).…”

Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward

“…Despite the persistent nature of paradoxes, studies relatively often examine specific consequences of paradox and its (mis)management, as seen in 48 of the analyzed studies (36%). On the negative side, studies found that defensive individual or collective responses, pulling toward one extreme or avoiding engagement with paradox, can have undesired consequences (Bartunek, Walsh, & Lacey, 2000), fostering ambivalence (Ashforth, Rogers, Pratt, & Pradies, 2014), and causing chaos (Thiétart & Forgues, 1995). If not managed effectively, paradoxical forces can neutralize each other's beneficial side or spark conflict .…”

Always on my mind: The impact of relational ambivalence on rumination upon supervisor mistreatment

“…Dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) posits that holding two inconsistent thoughts at the same time is experienced as aversive. Ambivalence is considered by some to be a more intense form of cognitive dissonance, since the competing attitudes are derived from opposite extremes (Baek 2010;Ashforth et al, 2014).…”

“…The majority of this research examines positive and negative relationships independent of each other and neglects that sometimes organizational relationships are neither exclusively positive or negative, but both (Ashforth et al, 2014;Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). An employee may have a relationship with their supervisor that vacillates between positive and negative experiences (e.g., being commended for good work and yelled at for something else).…”

“…By empirically examining how employees' respond to the experience of relational ambivalence with their supervisor, we address a recent call for organizational research to examine employee responses to ambivalence that are created from specific organizational triggers (Ashforth et al, 2014). In this study, we explore the effect of employees' perception of relational ambivalence with their supervisor on rumination after a negative emotional event.…”