04-014 Ch01 pp5

3/10/04

4:53 PM

Page 74

unclear, or where complexity exists. Stimulus-rich and

information-overloaded environments (e.g., air traffic
control towers) are examples. Regardless of their cognitive style, people vary in their aptitude for operating in
such circumstances.
People differ in the extent to which they are cognitively complex or in the extent to which they can cope
with ambiguous, incomplete, unstructured, and dynamic
situations. Individuals who have a high tolerance for
ambiguity also tend to be more cognitively complex.
They tend to pay attention to more information, interpret
more cues, and possess more sense-making categories
than less complex individuals do. Research has found that
cognitively complex and tolerant individuals are better
transmitters of information, more sensitive to internal
(nonsuperficial) characteristics of others when evaluating
their performance at work, and more behaviorally adaptive and flexible under ambiguous and overloaded conditions than less tolerant and less cognitively complex individuals. Managers with higher tolerance of ambiguity
scores are more likely to be entrepreneurial in their
actions, to screen out less information in a complex environment, and to choose specialties in their occupations
that possess less structured tasks. They also cope more
effectively with major organizational change, downsizing,
and role stress and conflict (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998;
Haase, Lee, & Banks, 1979; Schneier, 1979; Teoh & Foo,
1997; Timothy, Thoresen, Pucik, and Welbourne, 1999).
It also should be pointed out that individuals who
are more tolerant of ambiguity have more difficulty
focusing on a single important element of informationthey are inclined to pay attention to a variety of
itemsand they may have somewhat less ability to
concentrate without being distracted by interruptions.
In an information-rich environment, tolerance of ambiguity and cognitive complexity are more adaptive than
the opposite characteristics.
In the Skill Assessment section of this chapter, a
Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale (Budner, 1982) assesses
the extent to which you have a tolerance for these
kinds of complex situations. In scoring the Tolerance
of Ambiguity Scale (see Appendix 1), three different
subscale scores are assessed. One is the Novelty score,
which indicates the extent to which you are tolerant of
new, unfamiliar information or situations. The second
subscale is the Complexity score, which indicates the
extent to which you are tolerant of multiple, distinctive, or unrelated information. The third subscale is
the Insolubility score, which indicates the extent to
which you are tolerant of problems that are very difficult to solve because alternative solutions are not evident, information is unavailable, or the problems com74

ponents seem unrelated to each other. The more tolerant people are of novelty, complexity, and insolubility,
the more likely they are to succeed as managers in
information-rich, ambiguous environments. They are
less overwhelmed by ambiguous circumstances.
Cognitive complexity and tolerance for ambiguity
are not related to cognitive intelligence, and your score
on the Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale is not an evaluation of how smart you are. Individuals can learn to tolerate more complexity and more flexibility in their
information-processing abilities. The first step toward
increasing tolerance is becoming aware of where you
are now by completing the Skill Assessment section.
Then the Skill Analysis and Skill Practice sections of
this chapter, along with discussions, provide ways to
improve your tolerance for ambiguity and your cognitive complexity. It is also interesting to note that a positive correlation exists between tolerance of ambiguity
and the second dimension of orientation toward
change discussed hereinternal locus of control.

Locus of Control
The second dimension of orientation toward change is
locus of control. It is one of the most studied and
written-about aspects of orientation toward change.
Locus of control refers to the attitude people develop
regarding the extent to which they are in control of
their own destinies. When individuals receive information about the success or failure of their own actions,
or when something changes in the environment, they
differ in how they interpret that information. People
receive reinforcements, both positive and negative, as
they attempt to make changes around them. If individuals interpret the reinforcement they receive to be
contingent on their own actions, it is called an
internal locus of control (I was the cause of the
success or failure of the change). If they interpret the
reinforcement as being a product of outside forces, it is
called an external locus of control (Something or
someone else caused the success or failure). Over
time, people develop a generalized expectancy
about the dominant sources of the reinforcements they
receive. They become internally focused or externally
focused with regard to the source of control they perceive in a changing environment.
Over 1,000 studies have been done using the locus
of control scale. In general, the research suggests that
managers in North America have a far greater tendency
to have an internal locus of control than, say, Middle
Eastern and Far East managers (Hampden-Turner and
Trompenaars, 1996). In Japan an external locus of con-

CHAPTER 1 DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS

..

..