Listen to this article:
Abstract: Employees' perceptions of and relationships with their direct supervisors can significantly impact job satisfaction, motivation, and work performance. Research suggests that feeling ambivalent or having mixed positive and negative views towards one's boss is even more problematic than outright disliking them. This article examines the effects of ambivalence on employee performance, explores potential causes like inconsistent leadership and unclear expectations, and offers recommendations for both managers and employees to minimize ambiguity and foster more effective supervisor-employee dynamics. Key strategies include setting clear goals, providing consistent feedback, explaining decision-making rationale, encouraging open communication, and maintaining fairness and integrity. By proactively addressing the roots of ambivalence, organizations can improve employee engagement, effort and satisfaction over the long term.
Employees' perceptions of and relationships with their direct supervisors can have a significant impact on job satisfaction, motivation, and overall work performance. While an openly negative view of one's boss is understandably detrimental, research suggests that feeling ambivalent or mixed in one's assessment may be even more problematic.
Today we will examine the research into the effects of ambivalence toward a supervisor, explore some potential causes for such mixed feelings, and offer practical recommendations for both leaders and employees on how to minimize ambiguity and maximize effectiveness in the workplace.
Effects of Ambivalence on Performance
A growing body of empirical research has found that feeling ambivalent - having both positive and negative views simultaneously - toward one's boss is more damaging to work performance than disliking them outright. Some key findings include:
Studies surveying hundreds of employees across multiple industries found that those reporting ambivalence toward supervisors had lower self-rated and peer-rated job performance than those with solely positive or negative attitudes (Connelly and Kurtzberg, 2019).
Ambivalence was found to be more weakly associated with commitment to the organization and greater intentions to leave the job (Vongas and Al Hajj, 2015).
In experimental settings, simply inducing feelings of ambivalence in participants temporarily impaired cognitive functioning like memory and problem-solving more than inducing solely positive or negative moods (van Harreveld et al., 2009).
The negative effects appear to stem from the cognitive dissonance and psychological discomfort of holding mixed views. Trying to reconcile opposites requires mental effort that detracts from focus and productivity. It also fosters uncertainty that hinders clear decision-making and direction. Overall, ambivalence introduces an undesirable layer of complexity into the supervisor-employee relationship.
Potential Causes of Ambivalence
So what might lead employees to feel ambivalent toward their boss in the first place? Some common causes supported by organizational research include:
Inconsistency in leadership behavior. Leaders who are not reliable in enforcing rules or providing feedback and support over time breed confusion and mixed signals in subordinates (Pace, 2019).
Perceived unfairness. Double standards, favoritism toward others, or a lack of explanation around important decisions can foster both positive and negative attributions about a supervisor (Tepper, 2001).
Difficult job or inadequate training. When employees are set up to fail through an inability to complete difficult tasks or learn from mistakes, they may feel gratitude for a leader's mentorship but also frustration with unrealistic expectations (Judge et al., 2013).
Personality clashes. Differences in preferred communication and management styles, as well as mere quirks of personality, mean some supervisor-employee pairings will be naturally better fits than others (Hershcovis et al., 2007).
Ambiguity around roles or goals. Without clarity on responsibilities, performance metrics, or the broader strategic vision, it is easy for mixed loyalties and views to take hold (Kahn et al., 1964).
Being aware of such potential causes can help both leaders and employees address issues at their root before ambivalence takes hold.
Recommendations for Leaders
Given research showing the performance impacts of ambivalence, what steps can managers and supervisors take proactively? Some recommendations include:
Set clear expectations: Be upfront about job duties, boundaries, schedules, goals, and assessment criteria. Remove any ambiguity around what is required or acceptable. Revisit expectations regularly as conditions change to ensure ongoing clarity.
Provide consistent, constructive feedback: Offer positive and corrective feedback promptly after key milestones or as needed. Do not go long periods without feedback that leaves employees uncertain of their standing. Address both behaviors and outcomes to reduce any perception of unfairness.
Explain rationale for decisions: When implementing new policies or processes, or making personnel changes, take time to explain the reasons and strategic thinking behind the moves. Transparency builds understanding that counters potential mixed views.
Foster two-way communication: Beyond top-down feedback, encourage open dialogue so employee concerns, situational challenges, and opinions can surface before issues fester. Address issues promptly as a sign of respect for direct reports.
Model integrity and fairness: Through actions not just words, exemplify consistency in enforcing policies for all, avoiding inappropriate favoritism, admitting mistakes, and giving credit where due. This earns employee trust and loyalty.
Assess relationship quality: Conduct regular pulse checks, stay alert for drops in motivation or performance, and address issues with individuals confidentially as needed before problems escalate. Nip causes of ambivalence in the bud.
By implementing some combination of these best practices, leaders can take a proactive, preventative approach to minimize ambivalence and maximize employee engagement, effort and job satisfaction over the long run.
Recommendations for Employees
While leaders have the most direct means of shaping satisfaction, employees also play a role and should consider steps like:
Be clear and honest in feedback. Explain issues factually to give supervisors awareness and chance to address problems fairly.
Seek to understand from all angles. When confused by decisions, politely ask supervisors to explain rationale and consideration of broader strategic factors not always visible.
Focus on controllables, not personality clashes. Rather than dwell on interpersonal fit issues beyond easy fixing, concentrate efforts on performing duties to the best of abilities.
Address issues directly but constructively. Bring concerns first to supervisors respectfully for open discussion, instead of undermining their credibility or authority indirectly through others.
Look for opportunities, not just problems. Alongside concerns, proactively propose solutions or ways to improve processes for mutual benefit.
Maintain perspective on organizational realities. Recognize leaders face constraints from higher management and budgets that impact some choices. Keep the bigger picture in mind during employee-manager interactions.
Practicing such approaches on an individual level supports the healthy functioning of the whole supervisor-employee dynamic and workplace environment over the long term.
Conclusion
The relationship between employees and their direct leaders profoundly shapes work attitudes, motivation and ultimate performance outcomes. While disliking one's boss hinders productivity and retention, research suggests the even more insidious challenge of ambivalence - feeling mixed about supervisors. Leaders play a primary role in minimizing such ambiguity through clear communication, consistency, rational decision making and exemplifying integrity to build trust. Yet employees too have a stake in addressing concerns constructively and maintaining perspective. With diligence from both sides, ambiguity can be reduced, focus improved and the full potential realized within any organization.
References
Connelly, B. L., & Kurtzberg, T. R. (2019). Ambivalence in the leader-follower relationship: A synthesis and framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 73–86.
van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., & de Liver, Y. N. (2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 45–61.
Vongas, J. G., & Al Hajj, R. (2015). Ambivalence toward change: A source of well-being paradox. Motivation and Emotion, 39(5), 700–714.
Pace, V. L. (2019). Creating confident leaders: Managing perceptions during transitions. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 22(1), 21–40.
Tepper, B. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 197–215.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2013). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36–51.
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228–238.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Oxford, England: John Wiley.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Feeling Ambivalent About Your Boss Hurts Your Performance Even More Than Disliking Them. Human Capital Leadership Review, 19(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.19.1.2
