motivational analysis of organizations

❚❘ COPING WITH AMBIGUITY
Rick Roskin
Budner (1961) defined an ambiguous situation as one that cannot be categorized because
significant cues are missing. He identified three types of ambiguous situations: (1)
novel—a completely new situation with cues of uncertain utility; (2) complex—a
situation with too many cues; and (3) insolvable—a situation with contradictory cues.
Much has been written on intolerance for ambiguity (Frenkel-Brunswick, 1949), the
tendency to shut out conflicting elements in the environment, use rigid differentiation,
and seek premature closure (i.e., make decisions before collecting all available
information). Tolerance of ambiguity has been found to be dependent on capacity, the
innate ability to perceive the complexity of a situation, and opportunity, the variety of
experiences encountered by an individual.
All managers must cope with ambiguous situations, whether they deal with meeting
abstract or concrete objectives; the amount of ambiguity increases as managers move
into higher-level positions simply because their positions are defined less clearly, their
decisions must relate to long-term goals, their perspectives must be broader, and
feedback on their performance is less frequent and less specific.
It can be argued that the higher one’s job level, the more tolerant one must be of
ambiguity. Lower-level managers, because their tasks are often more structured, can
afford to be less tolerant of ambiguity. This issue was researched by Graves (1966), who
argued that some people may remain at certain behavioral levels through their working
lives. According to Graves, if an employee’s level is significantly different from his or
her manager’s, a deterioration of work standards will result. Therefore, managers must
be sensitive to differences and flexible in ambiguous circumstances.
Most people cope with ambiguity by either avoiding it (i.e., denying or ignoring it)
or by absorbing it (i.e., accepting and managing it). Either method may be effective,
depending on the circumstances. Avoidance can help keep the routines in place and can
allow planning, delegation, and the continued best use of technology and resources. It
can also lead to perceptual distortion, insensitivity, indecision, and construction of
elaborate defense mechanisms. Absorption can help managers to acquire personal skill
in problem solving, can allow them the experience of working through new problems,
and can lead to innovative solutions. Unskilled managers also can make errors through
ignorance and incompetence.
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 19, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer ❚❘ 15