When Positives and Negatives Collide: Evidence for a Systematic Model of Employees’ Strategies for Coping with Ambivalence

• Published in: Journal of business and psychology Vol. 38; no. 2; pp. 473 - 491
• Main Authors: Wu, Bingqing, Schuh, Sebastian C., Wei, Hongguo, Cai, Yahua
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.04.2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Behavioral Science and Psychology; Business and Management; Community and Environmental Psychology; Coping; Employee attitude; Employees; Holism; Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Organizational behavior; Original Paper; Personality and Social Psychology; Psychology; Social Sciences; Proactive personality; Enriched job characteristics; Responses to ambivalence; Coping; Ambivalence toward the organization
• ISSN: 0889-3268; 1573-353X
• DOI: 10.1007/s10869-022-09818-y

Although ambivalence is a common phenomenon in organizations, the scientific literature on this topic remains at a nascent stage. In particular, little is known about how employees cope with ambivalence. To address this gap, this paper examines a systematic model of employees’ strategies for coping with ambivalence. In study 1, using various samples, we develop a multidimensional scale of employees’ strategies for coping with ambivalence. The results reveal four distinct strategies, which fall into two categories: proactive strategies (i.e., holism and compromise) and reactive strategies (i.e., domination and avoidance). In study 2 , we examine the potential antecedents and outcomes of these four strategies, building on the conservation of resources theory. The results show that, unlike domination and avoidance, holism and compromise strategies buffer the negative impacts of ambivalence on employees’ tasks and innovative performance. Moreover, employees are particularly likely to use holism and compromise approaches if their personality or job encourages proactivity. Taken together, these findings support a new coping-oriented perspective on ambivalence, reveal why some employees choose (in)effective ways to deal with ambivalence, and show how effective coping can be fostered.