Understanding the Dual Nature of Ambivalence: Why and When Ambivalence Leads to Good and Bad Outcomes

Abstract

A growing body of research unveils the ubiquity of ambivalence-the simultaneous experience of positive and negative emotional or cognitive orientations towards a person, situation, object, task, or goal-in organizations, and argues that its experience may be the norm rather than the exception. While traditionally viewed as something to be avoided, organizational scholars in fields ranging from micro-organizational behavior to strategy have made significant advances in exploring the positive outcomes of ambivalence. However, despite identifying benefits of ambivalence that are critical to organizing (e.g., trust, adaptation, and creativity), research remains fragmented and siloed. The primary purpose of this review is to advance research on ambivalence by reviewing, synthesizing and ultimately reconciling prior work on the negative consequences with promising emerging work on the positive-that is, functional and beneficialoutcomes of or responses to ambivalence. We significantly extend prior work by demonstrating that the myriad negative and positive outcomes of ambivalence may be organized around two key dimensions that underlie most research on the effects of ambivalence: (1) a flexibility dimension: inflexibility to flexibility, and an (2) engagement dimension: disengagement to engagement. We further discuss the mechanisms and moderators that can lead to the more positive sides of these dimensions, and suggest avenues for future research.

Identity coactivation: Person and situation influences and the mediating role of experienced conflict

“…As a result, while the overall relationship between conflict and compatibility demonstrated a strong inverse correlation (as described above in the Methods section), we did see instances of coactivation that showed evidence of both conflict and compatibility (see Table ). These reports align with the notion of ambivalence, or the experience of simultaneous positive and negative orientations toward a situation (Rothman et al, ). We see ambivalence in identity coactivation as a fruitful area for future research because it addresses situations where both conflict and compatibility are experienced.…”

“…We see ambivalence in identity coactivation as a fruitful area for future research because it addresses situations where both conflict and compatibility are experienced. Rothman and colleagues () have suggested that ambivalence may produce flexibility or inflexibility as well as engagement or disengagement with the circumstances producing ambivalence. Future research should consider these outcomes as potential responses to the coactivation experience in addition to the emotional response found in the present study.…”

“…However, Rothbard and Ramarajan () draw parallels with work‐family role research to explicate identity conflict and compatibility, and this literature demonstrates that individuals' work and family roles may both conflict and enrich one another simultaneously (c.f., Greenhaus & Powell, ). Further, given recent attention to the construct of ambivalence (i.e., “the simultaneous experience of positive and negative emotional or cognitive orientations toward a person, situation, object, task, or goal”; Rothman, Pratt, Rees, & Vogus, ), we allowed for independence between the coded variables of conflict and compatibility. In some cases, participant descriptions showed evidence of both conflict and compatibility.…”

Lay conceptions of norm‐based approach and avoidance motivation: Implications for the performance‐approach and performance‐avoidance goal relation

“…To illustrate, appetitive and aversive processing operate within the same brain regions and involve similar neurotransmitter systems (Hayes, Duncan, Xu, & Northoff, 2014;Hu, 2016;Pessiglione & Delgado, 2015). Other research also highlights the prevalence of affective, attitudinal, and motivational ambivalence (Larsen, Hershfield, Stastny, & Hester, 2017;Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Ein-Dor, 2010;Rothman, Pratt, Rees, & Vogus, 2016). In research on goals, in particular, substantial positive correlations between approach and avoidance variants are observed (Gable, 2006;Mouratidis & Sideridis, 2009;Ryan & Shim, 2008).…”

Introducing conflict as the microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity

“…We argue that individuals are capable of consciously dealing with the conflicting demands of exploitation and exploration when situations are found to be adversarial or ambivalent (Lewis, 2000;Lüscher and Lewis, 2008;Putnam et al, 2016;Rothman et al, 2017). This relates to the general notion that conflicts must first be detected and recognized 28 by people, before they can be managed (Rahim, 2002: 207).…”