Marriages of Convenience and Other Trade-offs: Exploring the Ambivalent Nature of Organizational Relationships

Depictions of organizational life have ranged from depictions of extreme alienation (Erikson, 1986) to extreme commitment (Butterfield, 1985; Kunda, 1992). However, the emotional portrait of workers may not be so easily captured by simple shades of positive or negative feelings. Rather, the rapid rate of change, the ever-increasing complexity, and the seeming incompleteness characteristic of social life in the twentieth century suggest that this is an "age of ambivalence" (Weigert & Franks, 1989). In the work place, individuals confront the realities of hyper-competitive market places, technologically mediated relationships, empowerment, and economic insecurity. These and other issues have become embedded in the social structure of organizations and affect the bonds between individuals and between individuals and their organization. The result, we argue, is that individuals often experience ambivalence: "overlapping approach-avoidance tendencies" (Sincoff, 1990) characterized by "mixed feelings" about their work groups and organizations. Despite the fact that ambivalence is inherent in modern life, and is a central concept in many social sciences (cf. Boehm, 1989; Freud, 1950/1920; Bowlby, 1982; Merton, 1976; Smelser, 1998), our understanding of ambivalence in organizations is limited. In this chapter, we examine the topic of emotional ambivalence in the context of work relationships. We have four major goals in this regard: (1) to briefly review the concept of ambivalence, especially emotional ambivalence; (2) to argue for the prevalence of ambivalence in individuals' relationships both with and in organizations; (3) to propose two major sources of ambivalence in these relationships; and (4) to offer a typology of responses that individuals use to cope with emotional ambivalence. To illustrate these goals, we draw upon two different cases, rural doctors whose practices have been recently bought out by a large managed care organization (referred to hereafter as HealthCo), and employees at bank call-centers. These cases reveal two types of ambivalent relationships in organizations. The case of the rural doctors illustrates how individuals can become ambivalent with their employing organization. Thus, it illustrates an individuals' ambivalence with their collective. The call-center, by contrast, primarily illustrates ambivalent relationships between bank call-center employees and co-workers, as well as between employees and customers. Thus, it shows us ambivalent relationships within (rather than with) an organization. We believe that both types of ambivalent relationships (both with and within) are likely to be common in modern organizations.

Disclaimers of Contractual Liability and Voluntary Obligations

Contractual obligations are traditionally regarded as voluntary. A voluntary obligation is one that can be acquired only if one intends to acquire it. This traditional understanding finds doctrinal expression in the requirement that contracting parties intend to create legal relations. It has, however, been doubted that the Anglo-Canadian law of contract insists on this requirement. Skeptics argue that cases ostensibly decided on the basis of such a requirement are better explained otherwise. In this paper I invoke the legal force of contractual disclaimers to show that contractual obligations are indeed voluntary. When parties to an agreement purport to exclude it from the reach of the law by expressly disavowing an intention to bind themselves legally, they have issued a disclaimer. An unambiguous disclaimer will preclude an agreement from being enforced as a contract. Contractual obligations are thus “disclaimer-sensitive”. I argue that this striking feature of contractual obligations can be plausibly explained only if contractual obligations are voluntary

Disclaimers of Contractual Liability and Voluntary Obligations

Contractual obligations are traditionally regarded as voluntary. A voluntary obligation is one that can be acquired only if one intends to acquire it. This traditional understanding finds doctrinal expression in the requirement that contracting parties intend to create legal relations. It has, however, been doubted that the Anglo-Canadian law of contract insists on this requirement. Skeptics argue that cases ostensibly decided on the basis of such a requirement are better explained otherwise. In this paper I invoke the legal force of contractual disclaimers to show that contractual obligations are indeed voluntary. When parties to an agreement purport to exclude it from the reach of the law by expressly disavowing an intention to bind themselves legally, they have issued a disclaimer. An unambiguous disclaimer will preclude an agreement from being enforced as a contract. Contractual obligations are thus “disclaimer-sensitive”. I argue that this striking feature of contractual obligations can be plausibly explained only if contractual obligations are voluntary

Betterment

When property is wrongfully damaged the cost of reinstatement is often the appropriate measure of damages. Reinstatement by repair or replacement is, however often possible only by replacing old materials with new materials that enhance the value of the property, generating betterment. In such cases courts are faced with a choice whether to abide the betterment and award the cost of reinstatement, or reduce damages to offset the betterment. Examples of both responses to betterment are found in the cases, but no clear principle has been articulated by Canadian courts as to when one is to be preferred over the other I advance such a principle here, and use it to resolve some difficulties faced by courts in the assessment of damages where betterment is present

Disclaimers of Contractual Liability and Voluntary Obligations

Contractual obligations are traditionally regarded as voluntary. A voluntary obligation is one that can be acquired only if one intends to acquire it. This traditional understanding finds doctrinal expression in the requirement that contracting parties intend to create legal relations. It has, however, been doubted that the Anglo-Canadian law of contract insists on this requirement. Skeptics argue that cases ostensibly decided on the basis of such a requirement are better explained otherwise. In this paper I invoke the legal force of contractual disclaimers to show that contractual obligations are indeed voluntary. When parties to an agreement purport to exclude it from the reach of the law by expressly disavowing an intention to bind themselves legally, they have issued a disclaimer. An unambiguous disclaimer will preclude an agreement from being enforced as a contract. Contractual obligations are thus “disclaimer-sensitive”. I argue that this striking feature of contractual obligations can be plausibly explained only if contractual obligations are voluntary

Identity Work within and beyond the Professions: Toward a Theoretical Integration and Extension

Chapter from Desilva, A. and M. Aparicio (Eds.), International Handbook of Professional Identities. Rosemead, CA: Scientific & Academic Publishing. Our chapter examines identity work within and beyond the professions. To lend structure to this emerging perspective, we being by forwarding a general theoretical model of identity work. We then reexamine and extend this model by examining identity work amongst professionals. To do so, we first depend connections with literature on the professions to highlight salient and unique dynamics facing this occupational group. We then assess these dynamics in light of our model. Specifically, we show how an examination of professionals can advance theories of identity work by highlighting new motives and triggers, and recasting identity work as a relational process

Ambivalence in Organizations: A Multilevel Approach

The experience of simultaneously positive and negative orientations toward a person, goal, task, idea, and such appears to be quite common in organizations, but it is poorly understood. We develop a multilevel perspective on ambivalence in organizations that demonstrates how this phenomenon is integral to certain cognitive and emotional processes and important outcomes. Specifically, we discuss the organizational triggers of ambivalence and the cognitive and emotional mechanisms through which ambivalence diffuses between the individual and collective levels of analysis. We offer an integrative framework of major responses to highly intense ambivalence (avoidance, domination, compromise, and holism) that is applicable to actors at the individual and collective levels. The positive and negative outcomes associated with each response, and the conditions under which each is most effective, are explored. Although ambivalence is uncomfortable for actors, it has the potential to foster growth in the actor as well as highly adaptive and effective behavior