Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Ambivalence: A New Perspective on Leadership Relationships

The concept of leader-member exchange (LMX) has been a cornerstone of management research for decades, with emphasis typically placed on the quality of relationships between leaders and followers. Traditional thinking categorizes these relationships as either high-quality or low-quality, with high-quality relationships driving better performance outcomes. However, a fascinating study by Allan Lee, Geoff Thomas, Robin Martin, and Yves Guillaume published in the Journal of Management brings a new dimension to this field by introducing the concept of LMX ambivalence—where employees simultaneously hold positive and negative thoughts about their relationship with their leader.

The Overlooked Dimension of Leadership Relationships

The study "Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Ambivalence and Task Performance: The Cross-Domain Buffering Role of Social Support" challenges the conventional unidimensional view of leader-follower relationships. While most research has focused on where these relationships fall on a continuum from low to high quality, Lee and colleagues argue that relationships can also be bivalent—containing both positive and negative elements simultaneously.

This distinction is critical. Many workplace relationships aren't simply good or bad but contain mixed elements that create internal conflict for employees. This ambivalence can arise from various sources: perhaps a manager who provides excellent technical guidance but poor emotional support, or a leader who is sometimes highly supportive but unpredictably critical at other times.

The researchers developed and validated a measure of LMX ambivalence across five studies, demonstrating that this construct is distinct from the traditional measure of LMX quality. More importantly, they found that LMX ambivalence had negative effects on task performance independent of LMX quality. In other words, even in relationships that might be rated as relatively high quality overall, the presence of ambivalence could still undermine performance.

Ambivalence as a Performance Derailer

Why does ambivalence matter so much? The researchers provide compelling evidence that ambivalent cognitions about the leader-follower relationship create negative affect—unpleasant emotional states that divert cognitive and emotional resources away from task performance.

This finding aligns with research from psychology showing that holding contradictory thoughts about important relationships violates our fundamental need for consistency. The internal dissonance created by ambivalence is psychologically taxing, creating what researchers call "hot cognition" that diverts attention and energy from work tasks.

Interestingly, the researchers found that ambivalent relationships might actually be more detrimental to performance than straightforwardly negative relationships. This counterintuitive finding suggests that clarity—even negative clarity—might be preferable to the uncertainty and tension of ambivalence.

This perspective is supported by other research in the field of organizational behavior. For instance, a 2012 study by Ziegler, Hagen, and Diehl found that job ambivalence moderated the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Similarly, Pratt's 2000 research demonstrated that ambivalent organizational identification was associated with lower sales performance.

The Power of Social Support as a Buffer

Perhaps the most practically valuable finding from Lee and colleagues' research is the role that social support plays in mitigating the negative effects of LMX ambivalence. Across two studies, they found compelling evidence for what they call the "cross-domain buffering hypothesis."

• In Study 1, they found that high levels of perceived organizational support (POS) nullified the negative relationship between LMX ambivalence and task performance.
• In Study 2, they found a similar buffering effect with coworker support (CWS).

These findings demonstrate that support from domains outside the leader-follower relationship can compensate for the negative effects of ambivalence within that relationship.

This buffering effect has significant implications for organizational design and management practices. If organizations can foster strong support systems—whether through formal institutional mechanisms or by cultivating supportive peer relationships—they may be able to protect employee performance from the negative effects of ambivalent leader-follower dynamics.

The mechanism behind this buffering effect appears to operate through emotional regulation. The researchers found that negative affect mediated the relationship between LMX ambivalence and task performance, but high levels of coworker support prevented LMX ambivalence from triggering this negative affect in the first place.

Redefining Our Understanding of Workplace Relationships

A broader theoretical implication of this research is that it expands our understanding of relationship inconsistency in organizations. Previous LMX research has emphasized how leaders treat different followers differently (LMX differentiation), but Lee and colleagues suggest that leaders may also be inconsistent in how they treat the same follower.

This insight connects to emerging research on the prevalence of ambivalence in organizational life. Rothman, Pratt, Rees, and Vogus (2017) suggest that ambivalence may actually "be more the norm than the exception in organizations." If that's true, then understanding how ambivalence affects performance—and how to mitigate those effects—becomes crucial for effective management.

The research also contributes to a growing body of work suggesting that the affective dimension of leadership relationships deserves more attention. Traditional LMX theory has emphasized social exchange mechanisms, but this study highlights how emotional processes can also explain the link between relationship quality and performance outcomes.

New Insights from Other Research

Research by Methot, Melwani, and Rothman (2017) on ambivalent workplace relationships provides additional context for understanding the findings of Lee and colleagues. They propose that ambivalent relationships generate both costs and benefits, with the predominant outcome depending on how individuals manage the inherent tension.

Similarly, Ashforth, Rogers, Pratt, and Pradies (2014) developed a multilevel approach to ambivalence in organizations, suggesting that ambivalence can be experienced at individual, interpersonal, and collective levels. Their work proposes that different responses to ambivalence—such as compromise, holism, or domination—lead to different outcomes.

These perspectives complement Lee and colleagues' findings by suggesting that the performance implications of LMX ambivalence might vary depending on how employees respond to their ambivalent feelings. Although Lee and colleagues focus primarily on the negative performance implications, this broader research suggests that under certain conditions, ambivalence might actually stimulate more complex thinking and potentially lead to positive outcomes.

Implications for Practice

For organizational leaders and HR professionals, the implications of this research are substantial. First, it suggests that cultivating unambiguous, positive leader-follower relationships should be a priority. Leaders should be aware that inconsistent behavior toward followers—even if predominantly positive—can create ambivalence that undermines performance.

The research also underscores the importance of developing robust support systems within organizations. Strong perceived organizational support can help buffer employees from the negative effects of ambivalent leader relationships. This might take the form of clear HR policies, generous benefits, recognition programs, or other institutional signals that the organization values employees' contributions.

• Similarly, fostering positive coworker relationships appears to be a valuable strategy for mitigating the effects of LMX ambivalence.
• Organizations might consider investing in team-building activities, creating physical workspaces that facilitate interaction, or implementing collaborative work structures that strengthen peer relationships.

Finally, the research suggests that helping employees manage negative affect could be beneficial. Training programs focused on emotional intelligence and regulation might help employees cope more effectively with the negative emotions triggered by ambivalent relationships.

Limitations and Future Directions

While Lee and colleagues' research makes a valuable contribution, several questions remain for future exploration. First, the study focuses on subjective cognitive ambivalence, but future research could investigate affective ambivalence or affective-cognitive inconsistency in leader-follower relationships.

Additionally, the research primarily examines the negative consequences of ambivalence, but recent theoretical work suggests that ambivalence might sometimes have positive effects by promoting more nuanced thinking. Future research might explore when and how LMX ambivalence could potentially enhance certain types of performance, particularly on tasks requiring complex perspective-taking.

The cross-sectional nature of Study 1 also limits causal inferences, although Study 2's time-separated design provides stronger evidence for the proposed direction of effects. Future research using experimental methods could provide more definitive evidence of causality.

Conclusion

Lee and colleagues' research on LMX ambivalence represents a significant advancement in our understanding of leader-follower dynamics. By moving beyond the simple high/low quality continuum to consider the role of ambivalence, they offer a more nuanced and realistic view of workplace relationships—one that acknowledges their inherent complexity.

The finding that social support can buffer the negative effects of LMX ambivalence offers a practical pathway for organizations seeking to mitigate the performance impact of challenging leader-follower dynamics. Rather than focusing exclusively on improving leadership, organizations might also invest in building supportive environments that help employees navigate the inevitable complications of workplace relationships.

As we continue to explore the multifaceted nature of organizational relationships, this research serves as a reminder that simple classifications often fail to capture the rich reality of human interactions at work. By embracing this complexity, we can develop more effective strategies for enhancing workplace performance and well-being.