Executive evaluative ambivalence influences how firms act and respond to strategic issues but research on what is associated with such ambivalence has languished. Prior research focused on perspective complexity to the relative neglect of diagnostic effort, leaving imbalanced our understanding of not only executive evaluative ambivalence, but also issue diagnosis and sensemaking in general. Considering factors relating to both the subject of diagnosis (executives) and the object of diagnosis (the strategic issue), we test our hypotheses with pre-existing data addressing how executives evaluated a period of economic environmental equivocality. We find that executive job demands and perceived issue time pressure exhibited inverted-U relationships, and that a higher proportion of external executives and a narrower target market focus exhibited positive relationships, with executive evaluative ambivalence. We also confirm and extend previous perspective complexity research and close by addressing implications for research and practice.
AndersonMHNicholsML (2007) Information gathering and changes in threat and opportunity perceptions. Journal of Management Studies4: 367–387.
2.
AshforthBERogersKMPrattMG, et al. (2014) Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science25: 1453–1478.
3.
Bacon-GerasymenkoVEggersJP (2019) The dynamics of advice giving by venture capital firms: Antecedents of managerial cognitive effort. Journal of Management45: 1660–1688.
4.
BarkerDCHansenSB (2005) All things considered: Systematic cognitive processing and electoral decision-making. The Journal of Politics67: 319–344.
BirkinshawJAmbosTCBouquetC (2017) Boundary spanning activities of corporate HQ executives insights from a longitudinal study. Journal of Management Studies54: 422–454.
7.
BlagoevaRRMomTJMJansenJJP, et al. (2020) Problem-solving or self-enhancement? A power perspective on how CEOs affect R&D search in the face of inconsistent feedback. Academy of Management Journal63: 32–355.
8.
BlauPM (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.
9.
BlissHE (1917) The subject-object relation. The Philosophical Review26: 395–408.
10.
BouquetCMorrisonABirkinshawJ (2009) International attention and multinational enterprise performance. Journal of International Business Studies40: 108–131.
11.
BrewerP (2007) Psychic distance and Australian export market selection. Australian Journal of Management32: 73–94.
12.
BrownJRLuschRFKoenigH, et al. (1992) Using key informants in marketing channels research: A critique and some preliminary guidelines. Advances in Distribution Channel Research1: 45–79.
13.
BurrellHVespignaniJ (2021) The industrial impact of economic uncertainty shocks in Australia. Economic Papers: A Journal of Applied Economics and Policy40: 248–271.
14.
ChattopadhyayPGlickWHHuberGP (2001) Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal44: 937–955.
15.
ChoTSHambrickDC (2006) Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organization Science17: 453–469.
16.
DaftRLWeickKE (1984) Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review9: 284–295.
17.
DuttonJEJacksonSE (1987) Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review12: 76–90.
DuttonJEStumpfSAWagnerD (1990) Diagnosing strategic issues and managerial investment of resources. Advances in Strategic Management6: 143–167.
20.
EkbergS (2020) Are opportunities and threats enough? A development of the labels of strategic issues. Journal of Media Business Studies17: 13–32.
21.
FongCT (2006) The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal49: 1016–1030.
22.
FrankKA (2000) Impact of a confounding variable on a regression coefficient. Sociological Methods & Research29: 147–194.
23.
GanYWangYMengR, et al. (2015) Temporal discounting mechanisms of future-oriented coping: Evidence from delay discounting and task prioritization paradigms. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making28: 529–541.
24.
GavettiGGreveHRLevinthalDA, et al. (2012) The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. The Academy of Management Annals6: 1–40.
25.
GilbertCG (2006) Change in the presence of residual fit: Can competing frames exist?Organization Science17: 150–167.
26.
GinsbergAVenkatramanN (1995) Institutional initiatives for technological change: From issue interpretation to strategic choice. Organization Studies16: 425–448.
27.
GrimmerL (2022) Lessons from the COVID19 pandemic: The case of retail and consumer service firms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services68: 103012.
28.
GuckenbiehlPde ZubielquiGC (2022) Start-ups’ business model changes during the COVID-19 pandemic: Counteracting adversities and pursuing opportunities. International Small Business Journal40: 150–177.
29.
HaansRPietersCHeZL (2016) Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal37: 1177–1195.
30.
HahnTPreussLPinkseJ, et al. (2014) Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review39: 463–487.
31.
HambrickDC (2007) Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review32: 334–343.
32.
HambrickDCMasonPA (1984) Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review9: 193–206.
33.
HambrickDCFinkelsteinSMooneyAC (2005) Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review30: 472–491.
34.
HawesJMCrittendenWF (1984) A taxonomy of competitive retailing strategies. Strategic Management Journal5: 275–287.
35.
HendriksGSlangenAHHeugensPP (2018) How a firm’s domestic footprint and domestic environmental uncertainties jointly shape added cultural distances: The roles of resource dependence and headquarters attention. Journal of Management Studies55: 883–909.
36.
HofstedeG (2003) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
JacksonSEDuttonJE (1988) Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly33: 370–387.
38.
JuddCMLuskCM (1984) Knowledge structures and evaluative judgments: Effects of structural variables on judgmental extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology46: 1193–1207.
39.
JudgeWQDouglasTJ (1998) Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues into the strategic planning process: An empirical assessment. Journal of Management Studies35: 241–262.
40.
JulianSDOfori-DankwaJC (2008) Toward an integrative cartography of two strategic issue diagnosis frameworks. Strategic Management Journal29: 93–114.
41.
JulianSDOfori-DankwaJCJustisRT (2008) Understanding strategic responses to interest group pressures. Strategic Management Journal29: 963–984.
42.
JulianSDOfori-DankwaJShepardA (2019) Cognitive antecedents of highlighting and decoupling in response to social pressure. Group & Organization Management44: 652–684.
43.
KalninsA (2018) Multicollinearity: How common factors cause type 1 errors in multivariate regression. Strategic Management Journal39: 2362–2385.
44.
KetchenDJJrPalmerTB (1999) Strategic responses to poor organizational performance: A test of competing perspectives. Journal of Management25: 683–706.
45.
KissANBarrPS (2015) New venture strategic adaptation: The interplay of belief structures and industry context. Strategic Management Journal36: 1245–1263.
46.
KonigAGraf-VlachyLSchoberlM (2021) Opportunity/threat perception and inertia in response to discontinuous change: Replicating and extending Gilbert (2005). Journal of Management47: 771–816.
47.
LiQMaggittiPGSmithKG, et al. (2013) Top management attention to innovation: The role of search selection and intensity in new product introductions. Academy of Management Journal56: 893–916.
48.
LindJTMehlumH (2010) With or without U: The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics72: 109–118.
49.
LindellMKWhitneyDJ (2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology86: 114–121.
50.
LinvillePW (1982) The complexity-extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology42: 193–211.
51.
LylesMA (1981) Formulating strategic problems: Empirical analysis and model development. Strategic Management Journal2: 61–75.
52.
MannLTanC (1993) The hassled decision maker: The effects of perceived time pressure on information processing in decision making. Australian Journal of Management18: 197–210.
53.
MaritzAPerenyiADe WaalG, et al. (2020) Entrepreneurship as the unsung hero during the current COVID-19 economic crisis: Australian perspectives. Sustainability12: 4612.
54.
MatsunoKKohlbacherF (2019) Firms’ (non) responses: The role of ambivalence in the case of population aging in Japan. Long Range Planning52: 236–254.
55.
MatusikSFHeeleyMB (2005) Absorptive capacity in the software industry: Identifying dimensions that affect knowledge and knowledge creation activities. Journal of Management31: 549–572.
56.
MavondoFTFarrellMA (2000) Measuring marketing orientation: Are there differences between business marketers and consumer marketers?Australian Journal of Management25: 223–244.
57.
McMullenJSShepherdDAPatzeltH (2009) Managerial (in) attention to competitive threats. Journal of Management Studies46: 157–181.
58.
McNamaraGMLuceRATompsonGH (2002) Examining the effect of complexity in strategic group knowledge structures on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal23: 153–170.
59.
NadkarniSPanLChenT (2019) Only timeline will tell: Temporal framing of competitive announcements and rivals’ responses. Academy of Management Journal62: 117–143.
60.
NeelyBHJrLovelaceJBCowenA, et al. (2020) Metacritiques of upper echelons theory: Verdicts and recommendations for future research. Journal of Management46: 1029–1062.
61.
OcasioW (1997) Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue18: 187–206.
62.
OcasioW (2011) Attention to attention. Organization Science22: 1286–1296.
63.
PierceJRAguinisH (2013) The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management39: 313–338.
64.
PiezunkaHDahlanderL (2015) Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Academy of Management Journal58: 856–880.
65.
PlambeckNWeberK (2009) CEO ambivalence and responses to strategic issues. Organization Science20: 993–1010.
66.
PlambeckNWeberK (2010) When the glass is half full and half empty: CEOs ambivalent interpretations of strategic issues. Strategic Management Journal31: 689–710.
67.
PodsakoffPMOrganDW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management12: 531–544.
68.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88: 879–903.
69.
PopliMRaithathaM (2023) Implications of overwhelmed leadership: How executive job demands hinder corporate sustainability performance. Business & Society62: 1031–1068.
70.
PriesterJRPettyRE (1996) The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71: 431.
71.
PriesterJRPettyRE (2001) Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: Interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology80: 19.
72.
PulendranSSpeedRWidingREII (2000) Antecedents and consequences of market orientation in Australia. Australian Journal of Management25: 119–143.
73.
RahmanMAminAAl MamunMA (2021) The COVID-19 outbreak and stock market reactions: Evidence from Australia. Finance Research Letters38: 101832.
74.
RheeLLeonardiPM (2018) Which pathway to good ideas? An attention-based view of innovation in social networks. Strategic Management Journal39: 1188–1215.
75.
RidgeJWJohnsonSHillAD, et al. (2017) The role of top management team attention in new product introductions. Journal of Business Research70: 17–24.
76.
RothmanNBPrattMGReesL, et al. (2017) Understanding the dual nature of ambivalence: Why and when ambivalence leads to good and bad outcomes. Academy of Management Annals11: 33–72.
77.
RudolphTJPoppE (2007) An information processing theory of ambivalence. Political Psychology28: 563–585.
78.
SchwarzGMSandersKBouckenoogheD (2020) In the driving seat: Executive’s perceived control over environment. Australian Journal of Management45: 317–342.
79.
SeidlerJ (1974) On using informants: A technique for collecting quantitative data and controlling measurement error in organization analysis. American Sociological Review39: 816–831.
80.
ShamsSGunasekarageAVelayuthamE (2022) Economic policy uncertainty and acquisition performance: Australian evidence. International Review of Economics & Finance78: 286–308.
81.
SharifSMFYangNDRehmanAU, et al. (2024) Sustaining innovation during downsizing strategy through knowledge coupling, business process digitization, and market capitalizing agility. Australian Journal of Management49: 428–447.
82.
ShepherdDAMcMullenJSOcasioW (2017) Is that an opportunity? An attention model of top managers’ opportunity beliefs for strategic action. Strategic Management Journal38: 626–644.
83.
SlagerRGondJP (2022) The politics of reactivity: Ambivalence in corporate responses to corporate social responsibility ratings. Organization Studies43: 59–80.
84.
SmalesLA (2021) Policy uncertainty in Australian financial markets. Australian Journal of Management46: 523–547.
85.
SmithKGMitchellTRSummerCE (1985) Top level management priorities in different stages of the organizational life cycle. Academy of Management Journal28: 799–820.
86.
StawBMSandelandsLEDuttonJE (1981) Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly26: 501–524.
87.
TangZDicksonPMarinoL, et al. (2010) The value of organizational ambivalence for small and medium size enterprises in an uncertain world. British Journal of Management21: 809–828.
88.
The Economist (2023a) The Mona Lisa effect: How to explain the puzzle of the world economy. The Economist, 22April, pp. 59–60.
89.
The Economist (2023b) Trolley problems: Economists and investors should pay less attention to what consumers think. The Economist, 29April, p. 63.
90.
ThomasJBMcDanielRR (1990) Interpreting strategic issues: Effects of strategy and the information-processing structure of top management teams. Academy of Management Journal33: 286–306.
91.
ThomasJBClarkSMGioiaDA (1993) Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal36: 239–270.
92.
TuggleCSSchnatterlyKJohnsonRA (2010) Attention patterns in the boardroom: How board composition and processes affect discussion of entrepreneurial issues. Academy of Management Journal53: 550–571.
93.
WangYKMYangKM (2015) The impact of executive job demands on dismissals of newly appointed CEOs. Journal of Management & Organization21: 705–724.
94.
YuanWBaoYOlsonBJ (2017) CEO’s ambivalent interpretations, organizational market capabilities, and corporate entrepreneurship as responses to strategic issues. Journal of World Business52: 312–326.
