The Surprising Value of Ambivalence in Management

It’s not the stereotype that first comes to mind when one thinks about effective management. Business leaders are generally thought to be strong and decisive — not taking too much time to think about multiple sides of an issue.

So, I recently listened with interest to a podcast from management professor Naomi Rothman, which discussed the unexpected but substantive benefits of possessing a more ambivalent mindset.

These benefits can involve flexibility, ethical behavior, and, most importantly, improved team performance.

Seeking Information

In the podcast noted above, Rothman explained a logical (if not necessarily intuitively expected) dynamic that has a constructive impact on team interpersonal relationships.

“What we’ve found occurs in three separate studies,” she said, “is that leaders who are ambivalent in fact seek more information from their team members. That has the benefit of modeling a style of leadership that’s perhaps more democratic, and the team members start seeking more information from each other, and the team performs better.”

In short, teams that feel free to be curious and ask questions explore more options and ultimately tend to reach better solutions.

All of this makes good business sense. Additionally, Rothman has found that ambivalence in management — the act of regularly weighing multiple options without advocating for a specific solution — encourages flexible thinking among team members. And a flexible mindset is often valuable in a conservative (“my way or the highway”) business environment that discourages out-of-the-box thinking and creativity.

Another positive attribute is that ambivalent managers can be perceived as more ethical, since they have the ability to “take the perspective” of their employees.

Shades of Gray

Reflecting on the value of ambivalence in management made me think back to my own business career. Without ever articulating it at the time, I realize now that an ambivalent style was part of who I was as a manager.

I recall one leadership development seminar I attended as a young manager where we all had to write down on a flip chart the single phrase we felt best summed ourselves up. I remember the person right before me, a bright young MBA for whom I had a great deal of respect, wrote: “I always give 110 percent.” I remember thinking at that moment, wow, I totally get where she’s coming from, but I’d never describe myself that way.

Instead, I wrote: “I see things in shades of gray.” Today, more than 30 years later, I still remember that exercise clearly.

Over decades of working with and observing scores of managers in action, I came to strongly believe (despite stereotypes to the contrary) that there was no one sort of personality uniquely suited for leadership. Good managers come in all shapes and sizes. Some strong forceful leaders were great and achieved exceptional results; other strong forceful leaders were perceived as autocratic, alienated people, and got poor results. Some more ambivalent leaders were seen as weak and ineffective; others were seen as calm and thoughtful, and people were motivated to do excellent work for them.

I remember too speaking with a colleague about a very talented co-worker who’d been promoted to manager but hadn’t lasted long. “Oh, he was strong and decisive alright,” my colleague told me. “He wasn’t afraid of making decisions — but nearly all the decisions he made were bad decisions!”

In retrospect, sounds like he might have benefited from a more ambivalent management style.