The Surprising Strength of Ambivalent Leaders: Why Expressing Mixed Thoughts And Feelings Can Inspire Employees to Speak Up

This blog was written together with

Dr. Jana Hohnsbehn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jana-h-611bba15a/

What makes a great leader? Confidence? Decisiveness? A firm stance? You might think “all of the above” and for good reason—leaders are expected to provide direction and certainty. But the issues leaders deal with are rarely straightforward. Many decisions are complex and involve competing priorities, conflicting information, and trade-offs. In these cases, leaders may feel ambivalent, experiencing mixed or contradictory thoughts and emotions about an issue.

Although acknowledged as a common experience for leaders, ambivalence is typically seen as a weakness in leadership, and a sign of indecision and hesitation. But recent research, including our own, suggests a more nuanced view. Under the right circumstances, ambivalence may not be a drawback, but an asset.

Picture a leader who is always unequivocal in their opinions. Their stances are firm, their views are clear-cut, and they rarely express doubt. While this might project strength, it may also signal: “I already have the answers, no need to tell me anything.” Employees working with such a leader might hold back from raising concerns or sharing new ideas, assuming their input isn’t needed—

or worse, wouldn’t be welcome. This hesitation matters: employee voice is critical for organization success (Morrison, 2011). When employees feel comfortable speaking up, companies catch problems earlier, foster innovation, and create a more engaged workforce.

So, what happens if a leader instead openly acknowledges the complexity of a situation, reflects out loud on trade-offs, and admits to feeling torn? This could signal something powerful, namely, that they are mentally flexible and open to input. In short, the kind of leader it feels safe to talk to.

This contrast between leaders who express ambivalence and those who don’t led us to ask: Do employees perceive an ambivalent leader to be more cognitively flexible and therefore more able to attend to different perspectives than a non-ambivalent leader? And if so, can expressing ambivalence actually make leaders more effective because it encourages their employees to speak up?

How Do Employees View Leaders Who Express Ambivalence?  

We explored these very questions by first reviewing whether there are benefits to being ambivalent. Prior research suggests that there are. Ambivalence has been associated with advantages related to cognitive flexibility which describes the capacity to weigh diverse perspectives and process information in a balanced way. For instance, people who reflected on emotionally ambivalent experiences (i.e., feeling happy and sad at the same time) performed better on estimation tasks and showed greater receptivity to others’ perspectives (Rees et al., 2013). Similarly, individuals who are dispositionally more ambivalent tend to make more balanced social judgments and are less prone to cognitive bias (Hohnsbehn et al., 2022; Schneider et al., 2021).

But do others perceive these cognitive advantages when someone expresses ambivalence? In the workplace, might employees infer that an ambivalent leader is better able to engage with diverse input—and might this, in turn, influence their willingness to speak up?

To empirically test this, we ran three controlled studies with nearly 900 participants. In each study, participants were presented with a fictional senior manager who was either described as ambivalent or non-ambivalent. We then assessed their perceptions of the manager’s cognitive flexibility and responsiveness to employee input, and finally, how willing they themselves would be to speak up—for example, by offering new ideas, pointing out inefficiencies, or suggesting improvements to procedures.

Across all three studies, the findings were consistent. Ambivalent leaders, compared to non-ambivalent ones, were perceived as more cognitively flexible—that is, seen to be better able to consider multiple perspectives and adapt to complexity. This perception, in turn, led participants to infer that an ambivalent leader is seen as more responsive, meaning more open to engaging with employees’ opinions and feedback.

In Study 3, our final study, we grounded this dynamic in more concrete workplace situations. Participants imagined speaking up in situations in which voice matters for innovation, optimization, and ethical conduct in a company. Once again, those exposed to ambivalent leaders reported a higher likelihood of speaking up and anticipated fewer negative consequences for doing so. This suggests that ambivalent leaders are seen as more open and non-punitive.

Practical Implications for Managers

Even when leaders do not seek it out, ambivalence is often an unavoidable response to the complexity of today’s work environments. Our studies suggest that this ambivalence can be used productively: To signal openness which fosters input and upward communication. Managers can make the most of ambivalence by: 

Acknowledging Complexity: Avoid taking a firm stance right away. Instead, openly recognize the pros and cons of workplace decisions and make clear that the situation is complex and multi-layered.

Express Mixed Feelings and Deliberately Practice Ambivalence: Share when you feel ambivalent about an issue to model openness and flexibility. In conversations, regularly define and communicate both advantages and drawbacks of ideas (i.e., make pros and cons explicit or use practices like “think the opposite”) and model “thinking in draft” to let your team see your thinking evolve. Phrases like “I see good reasons on both sides” show openness and reduce pressure for premature certainty.

Frame Ambivalence as a Strength: Communicate that seeing multiple sides is a valuable skill, not a weakness and thereby create an environment where ambivalence is encouraged. Normalize complexity by affirming that seeing both sides isn’t indecision, rather, it’s discernment.

A Note of Caution: Context Is Everything 

We emphasize here the advantages of expressing ambivalence. However, ambivalence is not always a benefit. In crisis situations where quick, confident decisions are needed, too much ambivalence may undermine trust. The same seems to be true for strictly task-related scenarios where the focus is on instruction, situations where ambivalence can lead to confusion and where employees would prefer a non-ambivalent leader (Lim et al., 2021). Reflecting this dual nature of ambivalence (Rothman et al., 2017), effectiveness comes from knowing when to express ambivalence (e.g., strategy development, ethical reflection) and when not to (e.g., crisis management).

A New Perspective on Ambivalence in Leadership and Management 

Traditional leadership models emphasize certainty and conviction. But our findings point to a more nuanced reality: in many workplace contexts, expressing ambivalence can strengthen, not weaken, leadership. Ambivalence, when communicated effectively, signals flexibility, openness and receptivity to input. As such, leaders’ ambivalence helps to create an environment where employees feel heard and empowered to contribute.

So, perhaps we should rethink what makes a leader truly effective. Although ambivalence can be a source of conflict and indecision, our findings suggest that for many workplace interactions, leaders don’t always need to appear unwavering to be effective. Sometimes, the best leaders aren’t the ones with all the answers but the ones that, at the right time, acknowledge complexity, signaling that they are the kind of leader who’s open for business.

------------

References

Hohnsbehn, J.-M., Pauels, E., & Schneider, I. K. (2024). Open for business: How leader ambivalence facilitates upward follower communication via perceptions of increased cognitive flexibility and responsiveness. Current Psychology, 43(48), 37026–37043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07127-6

Lim, J. H., Tai, K., & Kouchaki, M. (2021). Ambivalent bosses: An examination of supervisor expressed emotional ambivalence on subordinate task engagement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 165, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.05.001

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506

Rees, L., Rothman, N. B., Lehavy, R., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2013). The ambivalent mind can be a wise mind: Emotional ambivalence increases judgment accuracy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.12.017

Rothman, N. B., Pratt, M. G., Rees, L., & Vogus, T. J. (2017). Understanding the Dual Nature of Ambivalence: Why and When Ambivalence Leads to Good and Bad Outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 33–72. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0066

Schneider, I. K., Novin, S., van Harreveld, F., & Genschow, O. (2021). Benefits of being ambivalent: The relationship between trait ambivalence and attribution biases. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(2), 570–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12417