Ambiguity Tolerance Interface: A Modified

Social Cognitive Model For Leading Under

Uncertainty

The

Michael S. Lane, Regent University,Virginia Beach, VA

Karin Klenke, Regent University,Virginia Beach, VA

This paper proposes a modification of

McCormicks (2001) self-regulatory leadership
confidence model by including an intervening
variable referred to as the Ambiguity Tolerance
Interface (ATI). After a review of theoretical
approaches relevant to developing a framework
of leadership at the interface of tolerance of
ambiguity and uncertainty, we introduce the
ambiguity tolerance interface (ATI) and discuss
a number of variables we identified as focal
constructs that comprise the proposed ATI
cluster. These variables include ambiguity
tolerance, spirituality, creativity, aesthetic
judgment and mindfulness. The paper concludes
with a discussion of instruments that can be used
to operationalize the variables of interest and
the implications of ATI for leadership theory
and praxis. Finally, we refocused existing
research to address the influence of uncertainty
on leaders in the dynamic global environment.

Todays corporate leaders are expected to

in
environments
effectively
characterized
by information overload,
organizational and environmental complexities,
ambiguous tasks and situations and conflicting
demands from multiple constituencies. Given
these contingencies, coping with ambiguity and
managing uncertainty are central leadership
competencies that are insufficiently addressed in
leadership research, both theoretically and
empirically. Stogdill, (1963), in the construction

function

of the Leader Behavior Questionnaire (LBDQForm XII), included a 10-item subscale

measuring tolerance of uncertainty and defined

the construct as the ability to tolerate uncertainty

without anxiety or upset. More recently, Ehrlich,
Meindl, and Viellieu (1990) reported that
generalized beliefs about leadership (i.e., beliefs
about the significance of leadership and leaders
as causal forces which determine the fate and
fortune of organizations) and charisma were
positively correlated with tolerance for
uncertainty. As organizational structures become
less hierarchical and more fluid and amorphous,
tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty is likely
to emerge as a quality that differentiates
effective from ineffective leaders.
Morgan (1997, p.92) argued that

organizational
embraces, and

intelligence requires, &dquo;uses,

uncertainty as a
new patterns of development.&dquo;
at times creates

for
Therefore, leader behaviors critical for survival
in
contemporary organizations such as
resource

innovation,
creativity,
adaptability,
entrepreneurship, flexibility in negotiation and
other change-oriented goals are best achieved by
people who have a tolerance for ambiguity and
uncertainty (Dollinger, Saxton, & Golden, 1995;
Ghosh, 1994;). In todays organizations, leaders
confronted with information overload,
environmental complexities and uncertainties
which
demand
successful
of
mastery
and
environment
and
organizational
ambiguities
tolerance of such ambiguities on part of leaders
if organizations are to survive and thrive.
are

Definition of

Ambiguity
(1962) defined ambiguity as &dquo;the
tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as
desirable&dquo; (p. 29); conversely, intolerance of
Budner

70

ambiguity as &dquo;the tendency to perceive (i.e.,

interpret) ambiguous situations as sources of
threat.&dquo; Ambiguous situations are defined as a
lack of sufficient information, and this lack
emerges in three contexts: (a) &dquo;a completely new
situation in which there are no familiar cues,&dquo;
(b) &dquo;a complex situation in which there are a
great number of cues to be taken into account,&dquo;
and (c) &dquo;and a contradictory situation in which
different elements or cues suggest different
structures-in short, situations characterized by

novelty, complexity,
This

or

insolubility&dquo; (p. 30).

paper presents theoretically and

empirically derived arguments for inserting a
new node called the Ambiguity Tolerance
Interface (ATI) into social cognitive models of
self-regulation (i.e., Bandura, 1997; Latham &
Locke, 1991; McCormick, 2001). More
specifically, we used McCormicks model of
cognitive social theory of leadership confidence
as the conceptual foundation for developing the
ATI as an intervening variable, which moderates
leadership self-efficacy and leadership goals as
predictor variables and leadership effectiveness
as the criterion variable.
Bandurass
recent
(2001)
writings
the
of
emphasized
challenge
complexity and
self-efficacious
uncertainty confronting
people.
More specifically, the author called attention to
the dilemma of uncertainty created by todays
telecommunication technology but noted that
changes which dislocate and restructure lives are
not new in history. However, what is new, is the
boundless scope and accelerated pace of human
transactions.
The challenge is not only to
efficaciously manage the information leaders are
bombarded with unmercifully, in addition, given
the global context in which most contemporary
organizations function, leaders must also
effectively adapt to the complexities of culturespecific differences that frame high-volume,
global interactions.
This challenge has been recognized for
some time. Klenke (1992) warned that much of
leadership theory predates the information age,
and &dquo;leadership researchers have not taken into
account the role of information technology (IT)
as
a
salient component of the leadership
situations&dquo; (p. 124).
Rapidly changing IT
platforms, hardware and software systems
represent a major source of ambiguity and
uncertainty while at the same time providing a

context for

their management. Writing

from an information processing perspective,
Lord and Maher (1991) based their model of
leadership on the principle of limited capacity
information processing and the &dquo;prototyping&dquo;
that attempts to work around these limitations.
The central point here is that human cognition
reflects a cognitive strategy consistent with
strong perceptions of the pervasiveness of
uncertainty and limited ability to manage
enough information to reach certain conclusions.
This view implies that uncertainty management
is more fundamental to cognitions architecture
than certainty management; yet, social cognitive
models of self-regulation and self-efficacy
largely address knowledge management and
offer little system space for emphasizing the
primacy of managing ambiguity.
The purpose of this article is to expand
existing research on the ambiguity tolerance
(AT) construct and position it in the context of
leadership theory and praxis by developing the
ATI as a moderator variable. The paper proceeds
as follows: first, we offer a review of theoretical
approaches relevant to developing a framework
of leadership at the interface of tolerance of
ambiguity and uncertainty: then, we introduce
the ambiguity tolerance interface (ATI) and
discuss a number of variables we identified as
focal constructs that comprise the proposed ATI
cluster. The paper concludes with a discussion
of instruments that can be used to operationalize
the variables of interest and the implications of
ATI for leadership theory and praxis.

unique

Theoretical

Perspectives on

ATI

This research is based on a number of

theoretical
frameworks
including social
cognitive models of self-regulation (i.e.,
Bandura, 1997), goal setting theory (i.e., Locke
& Latham, 1990), and McCormickss (2001, p.
26) leadership confidence model. Depicted in
Figure 1, it highlights the centrality of two
threads of self-regulation research - goal theory
(Locke & Latham, 1990) and self-efficacy

theory (Bandura, 1997). Multiple investigations

have reflected the general consensus that
&dquo;evidence for the validity of social cognitive
theory is very strong&dquo; (Locke, 1991, p. 293),
which makes the ATI modification of the model
very attractive (Asher, 1983). Banduras (1986,

71

1997) individual and collaborative research

with his associates have provided
empirical evidence and cogent argumentation for
the powerful effects of self-efficacy on
performance. In addition, over the past few
decades, social psychology models of selfregulation have proven very effective in training
environments where limits on time and money
efforts

Figure

Leadership

1: McCormicks Social

and Social

underscore the value of efficient process in the

identification of relevant variables (Powell,
2002). Since one of the goals of ATI is to apply
ATI knowledge to cross-cultural training as well
as other leadership performance areas, selection
of McCormicks leadership confidence model
makes sense.

Cognitive Model of Leadership Confidence

Cognitive Theory

Recent studies have examined a number of

constructs derived from social cognitive theory
in the context of leadership including leadership
processes in virtual organizations. The necessity
and increasing complexity of relationships and
interdependencies that govern diverse teams,
especially in virtual environments, demand that
leaders develop skills as uncertainty managers.
Kayworth and Leidner (2001/2002) suggested
that &dquo;social presence,&dquo; defined as nonverbal cues
such as inflection, gestures, eye contact which
play a significant role in building high
performance face-to-face teams, are lost or
distorted because of the nature of Internet
technologies. Although the ambiguity of this
&dquo;loss of information&dquo; in e-communication
processes can be limited if the technology is
utilized to the fullest extent, uncertainty still
pervades communications through the narrow
portal of the Internet. Hooijberg (1996) argued
that in the context of the global marketplace,
interactions are not only pervaded by uncertainty
inherent in the communication technology but
also by the ambiguities of open access to
culturally diverse team members. The leaders
ability to flexibly adapt to follower diversity
underscores the fact that complexity and

uncertainty management are emerging as a

critical leadership competencies.
According to VandenBos and Bulatao
(2000) effective entrepreneurs have the ability to
suspend judgment and tolerate long periods of
deferred gratification. That is, they have
patience and are willing to &dquo;defer financial
returns
for considerable periods.&dquo; This
entrepreneurial leadership competency relates to
knowledge-building meta-strategy research that
proposes the imagining of a temporary place
where the new, puzzling information is
tentatively &dquo;accepted&dquo; (Chan et al., 1997;
Gilbert, 1991). This type of cognitive capacity to
delay is a critical part of being open to
conceptual change. The ATI proposed here may
operate as a holding tank,&dquo; where new,
&dquo;problematic&dquo; information is &dquo;assumed to be
true&dquo; for a time for the purpose of bridging into
uncertainty. This allows implementation of an
affective, rational, strategy-driven optimism that
successful entrepreneurial leaders utilize when
they sustain their own efforts and cast a
motivational vision for followers.
Cross-cultural research has shown that the
confidence of managers who are sent to work in
overseas subsidiaries or tasked with cooperating
with foreign partners is also linked to AT

72

competencies. In his Anxiety/LJncertainty

Management (AUM) model, Gudykunst (1998)
underscored two dimensions of effective coping
with uncertainty in intercultural communication.
The
author
asserted
that
uncertainty
management (i.e., high AT) is bounded by
thresholds that mark personality-determined
limits of high and low uncertainty. In effective
cross-cultural communication, global leaders
must be skilled in managing the degree of
uncertainty and keeping it between maximum
and minimum tolerance levels. This in turn
activates &dquo;mindfulness&dquo;, an effective selfregulatory posture for processing new cultural
realities. Langer (1997) defined this mindfulness
as having three characteristics-&dquo;continuous
creation of new categories, openness to new
information, and an implicit awareness of more
than one perspective&dquo; (p. 4).

ATI AS THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY AND

LEADERSHI P
There

were

prompted
cognitive

us

deductive

or

to

number of

reasons

that

ask, &dquo;Why modify the social

model? Are there

inductive,

or are

either
there gaps, or

grounds,

times that support an

extension of the model that informs the theory
and praxis of leadership? How can the model be
viewed as a theoretical foundation in view of
emergent research that describes the leaders

applications unique

work

to

our

managing paradox (Klenke, 2003)?

we provide theoretical arguments
augmented by research evidence that support the
expansion of the social cognitive model of
leader confidence presented by McCormick
(2001). Our revised model (see Figure 2)
focuses on the two major cognitive variables in

new

as

In this section,

the model, takes into account recent research on

the role of self-efficacy in leadership as well as
managers daily experiences with the need to

effectively manage uncertainty.

Figure 2: McCormicks Social Cognitive Model of Leadership Confidence Modified to Include the ATI
Interface

cognitive theories-- self-regulation,

self-efficacy, and goal setting theories in
particular-- describe well what people know and
some of the complexities involved in managing
Social

information toward effective action.

(1997), in his explanation of inferential
thinking, reflected a clear assessment of the
complexity and the uncertainty of real world

this

Bandura

73
&dquo;

when he stated,
such problem-solving
skills require effective cognitive processing of
multifaceted information that contains many
complexities, ambiguities, and uncertainties. The

living

fact that

predictive factors are usually related

probabilistically, rather than invariably, to future
events creates some degree of uncertainty. The
fact that the same predictor may contribute to
effect may have
additional
multiple
predictors
Yet
the
authors
uncertainty&dquo; (p. 177).
discussion of the pervasiveness of ambiguity
contains no discernible strategy for uncertainty
management beyond skillful use of what is
known. Bandura goes on to say that in ferreting
out predictive rules, people must draw on their

different effects and the

same

creates

preexisting knowledge to construct options, to

weight and integrate predictive factors into
composite rules, to test and revise their
judgments against the immediate and distal
results of their actions, and to remember which
factors they have tested and how well they have
worked&dquo; (p. 117). However, the pervasive
preponderance of uncertainty that Bandura
himself portrayed seems to be too large a
cognitive load for self-efficacy and goal-setting
to carry alone suggesting that self-efficacy and
goals, though very important, are only one &dquo;hub&dquo;
in a complex of cognitive systems.
In their discussion of self-regulation,
Latham and Locke ( 1991 ) echoed Bandura when
the authors pointed out that self-motivation and
goal setting together are &dquo;foremost a
discrepancy-inducing process&dquo; (p. 233). In other
words, people motivate themselves strategically
by creating disequilibria when they create
challenging goals that push beyond previous
attainments and towards higher performance
standards. The &dquo;discrepancy&dquo; here is clearly a
decision to accommodate the ambiguous. The
inherent uncertainty in terms of means and
outcomes when achieving higher personal
performance standards suggests the need to
moderate affective factors such as anxiety that
commonly co-occur with feelings of ambiguity

(Gudykunst, 1995, pp. 12-14).

In

research
literature, ATs
function
has
also
been
suggested in
intervening
metacognition theory (Kuhn & Pearsall, 1998;
Kuhn, 2000). Kuhnss learning theory of
metastrategic knowledge and Chan, Burtis, and
Bereiters (1997) analysis of knowledgerecent

in the context of contradictory

information have provided additional support for
the effects of ATI as it operates as a moderator
variable in interactions between beliefs (e.g.,
self-efficacy beliefs) and change in the context
of persistent uncertainty (e.g., as in the case of
distal goals). In a similar vein, correlations
between ambiguity tolerance were reported in
the cluster of variables predictive of effective
performance of entrepreneurial, intuitive, and
cross-cultural tasks (Aycan, 1997; Burke &

building

Miller, 1999; Dollinger, 1983; Gudykunst,

1998). One possible explanation for the
of ATI as a moderator of self-efficacy
beliefs and goal setting under uncertainty has
been found in meta-cognition research and
especially in the operation of metastrategic

operation

cognitive functioning (Flavell, 1979; Kuhn,

2000).
For example, Chan, Burtis, and Bereiter
(1997) investigated knowledge-building and

conceptual change in the context of

This
contradictory information.
study
informs
this
of ATIss
discussion
specifically
moderator role since it allows a connection
between the ambiguity (&dquo;novelty, complexity, or
insolubility&dquo; as defined by Budner, 1962),
metastrategic knowledge building, and belief
change. In addition, the researchers identified
two domains for cognitively dealing with the
new, ambiguity-producing information.
First,
&dquo;direct assimilation&dquo; involves fitting new
information directly into existing knowledge. A
&dquo;one-shot&dquo; explanation directed toward problem
minimization, the assimilation approach
conflates new information with prior beliefs in
spite of contradictions. New information is
ignored, rejected, and distorted to accommodate
existing beliefs. This is clearly a low ambiguity
tolerance profile (Frenkel-Brunswik, 1949). A
second domain, &dquo;knowledge building,&dquo; involves
treating new informations contradiction with

previous knowledge as &dquo;something problematic&dquo;

in need of an explanation (p. 3). The knowledgebuilder views the conflict of concepts

as

an

expand, &dquo;setting up pointers to

concepts, questioning whether familiar
words have the same meaning in the new
domain, constructing explanations to resolve the
discrepancies&dquo; (p.3). This is clearly the high AT
profile (Budner, 1962; Burke & Miller, 1999;
DeKoch, 2001; Oddou &
Clampitt &

opportunity
new

to

74

Mendenhall, 1984). Chan, Burtis, and Bereiter

efficacy,

(1997, p. 32) concluded that in the context of

ambiguous conceptual contradictions &dquo;path
analysis findings provide a clear picture of the
mediating effect of knowledge-building activity
in conceptual change.&dquo; The implication relevant
to ATI is that ambiguity management strategies
mediate changes of belief, including changes in
self-efficacy beliefs in the context of

(Bandura,

uncertainty.
ATI and

Leadership Goals
Recently, Locke and Latham (2002) have
noted that in complex task environments,
learning goals lead to better performance than
performance goals (Winters & Latham, 1996).
In other words, in complex situations, goals
related to learning and conceptual change can be
superior to performance goals, and this supports
the central premise of this paper, namely the
insertion of the ATI as a moderator into
McCormicks social cognitive model. In
complex, uncertain contexts, learning, the
potential of ATI to generate knowledge derived
from the assessment and appraisal of uncertain
is
bonded
situations,
inevitably with
One
might say that where
performance.
is
of
uncertainty
high magnitude and persistent,
management of what is not known becomes a

major goal.
Locke and Latham (2002) proposed that
persistence in complex tasks, when connected
with distal goals, is problematic and suggest that
the best answer is to add proximal goals to work
conjointly with distal goals (Latham & Seijts,
1999). The authors reasoned that failure to break
down long-term, complex tasks into proximal
goals accounts for the lower performance
repeatedly reported in the literature (e.g., Frese
& Zapf, 1994; Domer, 1991). However, as
mentioned earlier, learning complex systems
(e.g., learning a culture) often implies the
accommodation of massive amounts of missing
information. Therefore, we suggest that

proximal goals provide only comparatively

small gains, and perceived uncertainty appears
largely unchanged for protracted periods of time.
Obviously, situations themselves vary in
amount and type of uncertainty they present.
Perseverant
self-regulation towards less
complex, proximal goals is supported by
outcome expectancies, vicariously learned self-

and

recalled

1997).

mastery

However,

experiences
more

novel,

complex, long-term endeavors are less likely to

provide the encouraging feedback, recallable
similar mastery experiences, and motivational
recognition of growing clarity. Persistence in
acting on such distal goals is more likely
sustained primarily by a meta-strategic variable
like ATI. Expansive organizational change (e.g.,
a protracted takeover), entrepreneurial pursuits,
face-to-face new culture learning, and virtual
leadership fit this profile. If leaders are to
become consistently proficient in managing such
global complexity and persistent uncertainty,
specific ways of increasing their self-efficacy
will have to originate in meta-strategies that are
suited to such an environment.
In addition, the cognitive ATI threshold
implied in our revised model suggests a
reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy and
goal setting. The assertion here is that ATI
provides a helpful way of explaining what
Bandura (1997) called &dquo;optimistic self-efficacy&dquo;
or distorted &dquo;self appraisals&dquo; that may contribute
to human performance. As Locke and Latham
(2002) indicated and Bandura (1997) intimated,
self-efficacy and goal setting are the &dquo;the
motivational core&dquo; of human agency and selfregulation. However, one of the central
propositions made in this paper is that there are
performance environments that do not favor the
maintenance of fully functioning self-efficacy
beliefs or goal setting as they are displayed in
McCormicks leadership model. Yet, many
entrepreneurial and innovative global leaders
find a way to persist and succeed. Bandura
(1997, p. 72) attempted to account for the
tenacity of entrepreneurial innovators in his
discussion of optimistic self-efficacy belief. The
author concluded that the root cause of the
success of such &dquo;resolute strivers&dquo; is optimistic
self-appraisal and strong self-efficacy and selfregulation despite the presence of numerous
disincentives such as frequent setbacks, the
lengthy nature of innovative pursuits and the
lack
of
self-validation
through social

comparisons. However, Banduras discussion

did not offer a clear explanation of how or why
self-efficacy sustains itself when so many selfefficacy enhancing conditions are not present few previous mastery experiences to recall, little
social modeling to vicariously learn from, not

75

proximal incentives, and not much

persuasive feedback.
Proposition 1: ATI moderates the
relationship between goal setting and
leadership effectiveness, which we
employed as the construct definition of the
&dquo;Leadership Performance Environment&dquo;
many

component of McCormicks model

ATI and

Leadership Self-Efficacy
noted
that
(1995)
Gudykunst
communicating effectively and confidently
under uncertainty requires that ambiguity be
managed so that it stays between a persons
minimum and maximum thresholds. Exercising
person controls for
unmanageable uncertainty in the cognitive loop
where ATI informs leadership self-efficacy,
leadership goals, motivation, and strategy, and
these generate behavior that is either more or
less uncertainty seeking. In unchallenging and
boring situations, uncertainty is increased
proactively through goal setting, and in
environments that are too uncertain, selfefficacious information seeking and mindful
knowledge-building can be used to optimize the
opportunities at the edge of this complex

human

agency,

ambiguity.
Knowledge-building strategy research
suggested that imagining a temporary place
where the new, puzzling information is
&dquo;accepted&dquo; (Gilbert, 1991; Chan, Burtis, &
Bereiter, 1997) is a critical part of being open to
conceptual change. Does ATIs function include
a strategically &dquo;throttling back&dquo;
of convergent
thinking and goal setting? Is it a bounded place
where new, &dquo;problematic&dquo; information is
subjectively &dquo;assumed to be true&dquo; for a limited
amount of time while additional probes and
ventures seek greater connectivity? This would
constitute a &dquo;bridging into uncertainty&dquo; for the
purpose of analysis and reconciliation of
discrepancies, but also, in the case of high ATI,
a rational, strategy-driven optimism.
The question raised above suggests that in
addition to managing degree of ambiguity (the
traditional way of understanding tolerance of
ambiguity), ATI may proactively manage selfefficacy for ventures into uncertainty, ventures
that are not framed by expectations of quick
incentives generated by conceptual convergence
or an immediate reduction in uncertainty or

If such

meta-cognitive phenomena can

fully understood and specifically
targeted in training, then leaders may would
certainly be better prepared to meet the
challenges of long-term, intractable ambiguity.
Paradoxically, sometimes high self-efficacy
in contexts of dynamic and radical change can
actually have a very negative effect on
outcomes. Audia, Locke, and Smith (2000)
pointed out that sometimes efficacy and
strategies developed in previous successes are
not easily adjusted to match the demands of new
changes in the environment. This &dquo;dysfunctional
persistence&dquo; usually occurs in uncertain
contexts. They explain that &dquo;to be an accurate
predictor of future performance, self-efficacy
must be based on accurate feedback regarding
past performance on the same task, performed

anxiety.
be

more

conditions. When the task

beliefs
based exclusively on
changes, efficacy
become
an inaccurate
past performance may
to
the
future&dquo;
The
guide
(p. 840).
implication
here is that in novel, complex, and dynamic
situations, self-efficacy cannot fully account for
functional, effective, persistent effort. Rather,
effective leaders have a way of building new
knowledge and moderating over-weighted
beliefs based on prior knowledge. The
moderator variable proposed here, ATI, and
perhaps meta-level ATI, and self-efficacy work
together to realize such distal goals.
Based on the research reviewed above, we
suggest that inserting ATI as an intervening
variable that moderates the relationship between
self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness creates
a more tractable explanation of how people
maintain self-efficacy and pursue goals in light
of what they do not know. Consequently, we
postulate the following proposition:
ATI moderates the
Proposition 2:
between
relationship
self-efficacy and
effectiveness.
leadership
The additional constructs in the model
which link motivation and strategy development
with ATI provide the cognitive space/loops for
the moderating influence of ATI on self-efficacy
and goal setting. As mentioned above, selfefficacy and leadership goals are the &dquo;the
motivational core&dquo; of self-regulation which,

under the

taken

same

together, determine,
leadership effectiveness.

at

least in part,

76

However, the interactions

within a cluster of AT related variables have not
been clarified and measured. Moreover, these
constructs were selected because of their
demonstrated or proposed role in both
uncertainty management and leadership research
research. For example, recent research has
reported a positive correlation between
spirituality as measured by the Spiritual WellBeing Scale, self-efficacy and transformational
leadership (Hartsfield, 2003). Likewise, as Bass
(1990) pointed out, there is a relationship
between creativity and leadership. More
specifically, according to the author, there is a
difference between leaders who possess task
competence, knowledge, skill ability and leaders
who have the ability to stimulate others to
imagine and to articulate their ideas.

Ribchester, 1995).

The ATI Cluster: A Construct

Definition
In regard to future research, a number of
ATI sub-dimensions, perhaps recursive in
nature, were identified to capture a cluster of
variables that comprise the nomological net of
the ATI construct cluster depicted in Figure 3.
These constructs include knowledge building,
mindfulness and other established AT correlates
such as creativity, aesthetic judgment, and
spirituality. Figure 3 displays one possible
version of this cluster that can serve as a
research map. In previous AT research, these

variables have been explored independently of

each other in a fashion that has been described
as &dquo;piecemeal&dquo; and &dquo;spread across so many
different sub-disciplinary fields&dquo; (Furnham &

Figure 3: ATI Cluster

ATI Cluster

Mirvis

Components

Spirituality
definitions of

and

Uncertainty.

Many

make reference to
terms
as
&dquo;existential
such
quests&dquo;,
ambiguous
&dquo;the presence of a relationship with a higher
power&dquo; or &dquo;our response to a deep human
for
self-transcendence
yearning
(e.g.,
Zinnbauer, Pargament , & Scott, 1999) and offer
little clarity about what spirituality means. Senge
(1990), in discussing the learning organization
hints at its spiritual foundation as the sixth
discipline leaving the reader wondering how it
can manifest itself.

spirituality

&dquo;

noted that religion is about

whereas spirituality is about

(1997)

answers

questions.
Spilka (1993) concluded that the term
spirituality has been used so loosely that it
has become a &dquo;fuzzy&dquo; concept that
&dquo;embraces obscurity with passion&dquo; (p. 1).
On the other hand, Snyder et al.(2002, p.
235) note that whereas many spiritual goals are
ambiguous, &dquo;wide in scope and require a
lifetime of pursuit; moreover, they may never be
accomplished in the their fullest sense&dquo;-e. g.,
spiritual goals like the purpose of life, gaining

77

supernatural assistance in living, peace, etc.,

higher order spirituality schema like faith and
hope assist in managing this uncertainty. These
very abstract spiritual goals provide a high AT
scaffolding for many specific sub-goals that
include the full range of secular activities
engaged in by the subject-work, personal
habits, relationships, family, etc. Therefore the
implication is that, spirituality also potentially
contributes to general uncertainty management.
Creativity and Ilncertainty. In todays
competitive business environment, global
competition forces companies to perpetually
seek ways of improving their products/services.
Global competition, new production techniques,
and rapid technological change have placed a
premium on creativity and innovation. In this
&dquo;age of uncertainty&dquo;, dominated by the X-factor
with the &dquo;X&dquo; standing for &dquo;unknown&dquo; (Klenke &

Chaharbaghi, 2002), organizations increasingly

aspire to become more innovative and to
capitalize on the benefits of creativity.
Nutt (1993) looks at the interaction between
leader decision-making and flexible use of
multiple modes of understanding. Using the
MBTI (Myers, 1963) scale, Nutt finds that top
executives demonstrate significantly more high
AT-type thinking than other employees. He also
found significant correlations between increased
AT and use of multiple modes of understanding
This study reflects significant
(p. 712).
associations between ambiguity tolerance,
flexibility, and leader effectiveness. Similarly,
Kirtons (1976) study and validation of the wellknown &dquo; Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory&dquo;
(KAI) likewise draws strong correlational results
linking managerial innovation, creativity and
high ambiguity tolerance.
Aesthetic Judgment and Uncertainty.
Recent work in organization studies ( e.g.,
Gagliari, 1990; Strati 1992) has drawn attention
to the idea of developing an aesthetics of
organization as a field of inquiry within
organization studies [and by extension,
leadership studies]. These authors contend that
organizational aesthetics is not separate from the
daily lives of people in organizations, and
therefore it is not possible for organizational
theorists to detach themselves
aesthetics of their own experiences,
styles, and judgment.

from

the

preferences,

Mindfulness and Uncertainty. Langer

(1987, 1997) and Gudykunst (1995) regard
mindfulness as a strategic moderator of
uncertainty in communication. Langer defines
&dquo;mindful
as
learning&dquo;
having three
characteristics, &dquo;continuous creation of new
categories, openness to new information, and an
implicit awareness of more than one
perspective&dquo; (Langer, 1997, p. 4). She asserts
that this ability to cognitively shift contexts
&dquo;increases flexibility, productivity, innovation,
leadership ability, and satisfaction&dquo; (Langer,
1989, p. 133). In seeming contrast to Banduras
self-efficacious and task-oriented response to
uncertainty, Gudykunst (1995, p. 17) concludes
that one of the chief neutralizers of
&dquo;mindfulness&dquo; in ambiguous cross-cultural
situations is excessive &dquo;outcome orientation.&dquo;
Finally, particularly relevant to leadership praxis
is
observation
that
(1989)
Langers
&dquo;mindlessness&dquo; sets in when we become too
&dquo;expert&dquo; and are so comfortable with customary
categories that creativity and problem solving
are undermined.

Measurement of the Constructs in the

ATI Cluster
Five instruments are suggested for model
testing and data gathering: ambiguity tolerance
(AT) is frequently operationalized using the AT20 (McDonald, 1970); the instrument has strong
reliability coefficients. The Cronbach alpha for
the AT-20 is 0.78, compared with a
0.59 for
Budners (1962) AT scale. Nunnally (1978, p.
245) suggested that scales with internal
reliability of a = .70 to .80 are acceptable for
research purposes.
Spirituality in previous research has been
measured by a variety of scales, including the
Spiritual Well Being Scale (SWBS) (Paloutzin
& Ellison, 1983), which is one of the stronger
measures in the assessment of spirituality. The
=

SBWS consists of two subscales with ten items

each: the Existential Well Being Scale (EWB)
which refers to a sense of life purpose and life
satisfaction and the Religious Well-Being Scale
(RWB) connotes a sense of well being in
relation to God. The scale has been used in over
70 studies and has demonstrated acceptable
reliabilities with Cronbach alphas of .84 and
test-retest reliabilities of .85. Construct validity
of the instrument continues to be a concern.

78
For the creativity construct, we selected the
20-item Innovative Attitude Scale (Ettlie &

OKeefe, 1982). This instrument focuses

Conclusions And

Implications

on

attitudes towards creative, innovative behavior

in organizations. The dimensions revealed
through factor analysis were: &dquo;innovator, the
preserver of the status quo, and the
unchallenged, dissatisfied person&dquo; (p. 163). The
reliability of the Innovative Attitude Scale (IAS)
as reported by Ettlie and OKeefe is a = 0.89.
Aesthetic
judgment.
Reviewing
instruments measuring aesthetic judgment, we
noted that scales that measure aesthetic
judgment usually require use of visual art in the
testing procedure. So, the study will use
Parsonss
(1985)
Bamossy, Johnston, &
Aesthetic Judgment Ability Scale (AJA) that is
designed with the specific purpose of measuring
aesthetic judgment and not aesthetic preferences.
The AJA uses three color reproductions: Paul
Klees Head of a Man, Francisco Goyas The
Horrors of War, and Ivan Albrights Into the
World Came a Soul Named Ida. Results from
testing reliability of AJA present reasonably
strong evidence for internal consistency. The
overall Cronbach alpha for the AJA is an
acceptable 0.80. The overall stability of the
measure
is evidenced by the test-retest
coefficient of 0.85.
Finally, mindfulness can be assessed with
the Mindfulness/Mindlessness Scale (Bodner &
Langer, 2001) since it is the instrument of choice
to operationalize this construct. As described by
Gudykunst (1995), mindfulness taps the metastrategic posture of being open to new
information and categories in the context of

In this
article, we departed from
McCormicks (2001) social cognitive model of
leadership confidence and offered theoretically
and empirically derived arguments for an
expansion of the model to include ambiguity
tolerance as an intervening variable that
moderates the relationships between the
cognitive constructs of self-efficacy and goal
setting and leadership effectiveness. This led us
to the proposal of the ATI for which we offered
a construct definition based on the inclusion of

managing uncertainty (see Langer, 1989).

Testing evidenced an acceptable Cronbach alpha
of 0.83. In Bodners (2001) intensive study of
the scales initial form, called the LMS (i.e.,
Langer Mindfulness Scale), the psychometric
reliability and validity of the MMS were refined.
Construct validity was established through
comparison with eight other established scales
and their related dimensions (Bodner & Langer,

Implications for Leadership Research

Although leadership and ambiguity theory
have been conceptually and operationally linked
for more than four decades (e.g., Stogdill, 1963),
a
systematic program of research that
incorporates ambiguity tolerance into major
frameworks
of
such
as
leadership

2001).
Taken together, tolerance of ambiguity,
spirituality, creativity, aesthetic judgment and
mindfulness represent the constructs embedded
in the ATI cluster, which can be empirically
examined by using the above instruments in
correlational and predictive studies.

ambiguity tolerance, spirituality, creativity,

aesthetic judgment and mindfulness as the
salient variables that comprise the ATI cluster.
These four constructs typically play themselves
out in ambiguous, complex situations. For
example, many definitions of spirituality make
reference to
an

transcendent power which remains

ambiguous concept based on a persons
a

religious or spiritual orientation; yet,

paradoxically, spiritual-psychological schemas
also seem to help people persist as &dquo;resolute
strivers&dquo; in the midst of uncertainty.
Numerous researchers have resonated the
general consensus that evidence for the validity
of social cognitive theory is very strong (e.g.,
Locke, 1991, p. 293). By including the ATI, we
have created an expanded theoretical framework
that is particularly relevant for the study of
leadership and for the training of leaders who
may be undertaking tasks in uncertain
environments.

transactional/transformational (i.e., Bass, 1990)

or leader-member exchange theory (i.e., Graen
&
Uhl-Bien, 1995) has yet to evolve. In
addition, the emergence of trust as a major
construct in leadership research (i.e., McKnight,
Cummings, Chervany, 1998) suggests that
establishing and maintaining trust between
leaders and followers not only opens both parties
to vulnerability (Mayer, Davis, &
Schoorman,

79

1995) but entails elements of ambiguity and

uncertainty as

well.

The inclusion of the ATI cluster as defined

in this research suggests ways of healing the
split between cognitive and affective theories of
leadership. Research on the importance of
cognitive complexity (i.e., Elliott & Clement,
1991; Denison, Hooijberg & Quinn, 1995) on
the one hand, and emotional intelligence and
their relationship to leadership, on the other,
have shown that cognitive ability and emotional
intelligence go hand in hand when it comes to

effectiveness.
the
Moreover,
of emotional intelligence as a
predictor of a leaderss transformational
orientation has produced evidence that emotions
such as empathy, optimism
(i.e., Seligman,
1998; Kellett, Humphrey & Sleeth, 2002) are
non-traditional
routes
in
leadership
effectiveness. Our proposed definition of the
ATI cluster includes cognitive, affective and
spiritual dimensions as a means of creating a
multi-faceted construct that integrates a leaderss
cognitive abilities and emotional intelligence.

leadership

emergence

Implications for Leadership

Praxis

the past decades, the social

psychology models of self-regulation have
proven very effective in training environments
where limited resources underscore the value of
efficient identification of factors that predict
success in leadership training programs (Powell,
2002). Since one of the goals of the inclusion of
the ATI is to apply knowledge about the
management of uncertainty to cross-cultural
training, the expansion of McCormicks (2001)
leadership confidence model is practically
relevant. Likewise, recent research on emotional
intelligence (EI) and its role in leadership has
highlighted the importance of self-regulation,
which, in several definitions of EI (e.g.,
Goleman, 1998) is a characteristic of
emotionally intelligent leaders. The author
argues that people who are in control of their
feelings and impulses are able to create an
environment of trust and fairness, an
environment where politics and infighting are
sharply reduced and productivity is high.
Additionally, self-regulation is important for
competitive reasons, particularly in business
contexts rife with uncertainty. People who have
Over

mastered

their emotions

are

able

to

deal

constructively with such ambiguity and change.

Finally, this research makes a contribution
to the leadership literature by going beyond textbased assessments of leadership relevant
constructs by suggesting the use of visual data as
the operational measures of two constructs
embedded in the ATI cluster, namely creativity
and aesthetic judgment. As Emmison and Smith
(2000) pointed out, assessing the place of visual
data in the social science [and hence leadership
research] is made difficult by the fact that there
is no agreement about what this term should
embrace or - perhaps more significantly - how
such data are to be incorporated into the
theoretical and analytical concerns of leadership
theory and research. With the inclusion of visual
data, we call attention to the paradox of having
image-based leadership underrepresented in the
mainstream literature. Yet, at the same time,
technology has opened the doors for visual
inquiry based on the significant progress in the
areas
photography, documentaries, motion
pictures, and the increasingly sophisticated and
media-literate lay public who are consumers of
leadership research. As modes of inquiry, visual
data have largely been marginalized in
leadership research, and analytical frameworks
for the investigation of visual data have not yet
been developed.
In conclusion then, we added the ATI to
McCormicks (2001) model of leadership
confidence. Moreover, we offered a nomological
net of constructs proposed as the theoretical
foundation of the ATI cluster. We also
suggested that through the measurement of
creativity and aesthetic judgment an opportunity
to foray into image-based research exists which
promises theoretically challenging research and
boundary spanning methodologies. Such new
approaches invite new vistas that span the
boundaries between cognitive and affective
leadership theories and the increasing role that
the management of paradox and uncertainty
plays in leadership effectiveness.

80
Ehrlich, S., Meindl, J., &

References

charismatic

Asher, H. B. (1983). Causal Modeling (2

nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Audia, P. G., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2000). The
of success: An archival and a laboratory
study of strategic persistence following radical
environmental change. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 837-853.
Aycan, Z. (1997). Expatriate adjustment as a multifaceted

paradox

phenomenon: Individual and organizational level

predictors. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 8, 434-456.
Bambossy, G., Johnston, M., & Parsons, M. (1985). The
assessment of aesthetic judgment ability. Empirical
Studies of the Arts, 3, 63-79.
Bandura, A. (1986). The social foundations of thought and
action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.

New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.

Bandura, A. (2001). The changing face of psychology

at

the

dawning of a globalization era. Canadien

Psychology, 42, 12-24.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural
context.
An
Applied
Psychology:
InternationalReview, 51, 269-290.
Bass, B. (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership:
rd
Theory, research, and managerial applications (3
ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bodner, T. E., & Langer, E. J. (2001, June). Individual
in
mindfulness:
differences
The
mindfulness/mindlessness
scale. Poster session
presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Society Conference, Toronto, Ontario.
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a
personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 2959.
Burke, L. A., & Miller, A. K. (1999). Taking the mystery
out of intuitive decision making. Academy of
Management Executive, 13, 91-99.
Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge-

building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual

change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1-40.
Clampitt, P. G., & DeKoch, R. J. (2001). Embracing
uncertainty: The essence of leadership. Armonk, NY:
M. E. Sharpe.
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995).
Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of
behavioral complexity in managerial leadership.
Organization Science, 6, 524-540.
Dollinger, M. (1983). The use of Budners intolerance of
ambiguity measure for entrepreneurial research.
Psychological Reports, 53, 1019-1021.
Dollinger, M., Saxton, T., & Golden, P. A. (1995).
Intolerance of ambiguity and the decision to form an
alliance. Psychology Reports, 77, 1197-1198.
Domer, D. (1991). The investigation of action regulation in
uncertain and complex situations. In J. Rasmussen &
B. Brehmer (Eds.), Distributed decision making:
Cognitive models for cooperative work (pp. 349-354).
Chichester, England: Wiley.

appeal

of

Viellieu, B. (1990). The

transformational leader: An

empirical case of a small, high technology contractor.

Leadership Quarterly, 1, 4, 229-248.
Elliott, J., & Clement, S. (1991). Executive leadership.
Arlington, VA: Cason Hall & Co. Publishers.
Emmison, M., & Smith, P. (2000). Researching the visual.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ettlie, J. E., & OKeefe, R.

D.

(1982). Innovative attitudes,

values, and intentions in organizations. Journal of

Management Studies, 19, 163-182.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring:
A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry.
American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1948). Tolerance of ambiguity as an
emotional and perceptual personality variable.
Journal of Personality, 18, 108-143.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work
psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis &
M. D. Dunnette (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
nd ed., pp. 271-340). Palo
organizational psychology (2
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of
ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement,
and
Current
applications.
Psychology:

Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 14,

179-199.

Gagliardi, P. (1990). Artifacts and pathways and remains of

organizational life. (pp. 3-38). In P. Gagliadi (Ed.).
Symbols and artifacts. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe.
American Psychologist, 46, 107-119.
Ghosh, D. (1994). Tolerance for ambiguity, risk preference,
and negotiator effectiveness. Decision Sciences, 25,
263-280.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard

Business Review, November-December, 93-102.
Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based
to leadership: Development of leadermember exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over
25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain

approach

perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 2, 219-247.

W.
B.
(1995).
Anxiety/uncertainty
management (AUM) theory: Current status. In R.
Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory
(pp. 8-58). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE

Gudykunst,

Publishing.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Applying anxietyBuncertainty
management (AUM) Theory to intercultural
adjustment training. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 22, 227-250. Retrieved on
November 26, 2002, from Science Direct database.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Mody, B. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook
nd
of international and intercultural communication (2
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hartsfield, M. (2003). The internal dynamics of
transformational
leadership: The effects of
spirituality, emotional intelligence and self-efficacy
on transformational leadership. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidirectional approach toward
leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral
complexity. Human Relations, 49, 917-946

81

Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2001/2002, Winter).

Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 740.

Kahn, B. E. & Sarin, R. K. (1988). Modeling ambiguity in

decisions under

uncertainty.

Journal

of

Consumer

Research, 15, 265-272.

Kellett, J., Humphrey, R., & Sleeth, R. (2002). Empathy
and

complex task performanceTwo routes to

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 523-544.
Kendall, J. I. DeGross, & K. Lyytinen (Eds.), The impact of
computer supported technologies on information
systems development (pp. 115-132). Amsterdam:
North-Holland.

Klenke, K. (1992). Leadership processes in computer

mediated work groups: Implications of information
systems development and leadership studies. In K. E.
Klenke, K. (2003). The leaders new work: Managing
th
paradox. Paper accepted for presentation at the 9
Annual Conference of the International Leadership
Association, Guadalajara, Mexico, November 6-8.
Klenke, K., & Chaharbaghi, K. (2002). Invisible leadership
and the X-factor. Unpublished manuscript.
Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9,
178-181.
Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (1998). Relations between
metastrategic knowledge and strategic performance.

Cognitive Development, 13, 227-247.

Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Langer, E. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation
through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 212-247.
Seijts, G. H. (1999). The effects of
proximal and distal goals on performance on a
moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 421-429.
Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the
motivation
hub
and
the
motivation
core.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Latham, G. P., &

Processes, 50, 288-299.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal
setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a
practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation:

A
35-year
Psychologist, 57, 705-717.

Lord, R. G., &

odyssey.

American

Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and

information processing: Linking perceptions and

performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
MacDonald, A. P. (1970). Revised scale for ambiguity
tolerance: Reliability and validity. Psychological
Reports, 26, 791-798.
Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, D. (1995). An
integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 3, 709-734.
McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership
effectiveness: Applying social cognitive theory to
leadership. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8, 2233.

McKnight, H., Cummings, L., Chervany, N. (1998). Initial

trust formation in new organizational relationships.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 3, 473-490.
Mirvis, P. (1997). "Soul work" in organizations.
Organization Science, 8, 2, 193-206
nd ed.).
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (2
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Norton, R. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 607-619.
Nutt, P. C. (1993). Flexible decision styles and the choice
of top executives. Journal of Management Studies,
30, 695-721.
Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. (1984). Person perception in
cross-cultural settings: A Review of cross-cultural
and related cognitive literature. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 8, 77-96.
Paloutzin, R., & Ellison, C. (1983). Loneliness, spiritual
well-being, and quality of life. In L. Peplau & D.
Perlman (eds.) Loneliness: A sourcebook of current
research and therapy. New York:
theory,
Wiley Interscience.
Powell, J. (2002). Personal communication.
Seligman, A.A. (1998). Trust and Sociability: On the limits
of confidence and role expectations. The American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57, 391-404.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York:

Doubleday.
C. R., Sigmon, D. R., & Feldman, D. B. (2002).
Hope for the sacred and vice versa: Positive goaldirected thinking and religion. Psychological Inquiry,

Snyder,

13, 234-238.

Spilka, B. (1993). Spirituality: Problems and directions in

operationalizing a fuzzy concept. Paper presented at
the American Psychological Association, Toronto,
CA.

Stogdill, R. (1963). Leader behavior description

questionnaire-form XII. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University, Bureau of Business Research.
Strati, A. (1992). Aesthetic understanding in organizational
life. Academy of Management Review, 17, 3, 568581.

Strati, A. (1999). Organizations and aesthetics. London:

Sage.
VandenBos, G. R., & Bulatao, E. Q. (2000). Observations

entrepreneurial psychologists. The PsychologistManager Journal, 4, 97-102.

Winters, D., & Latham, G. (1996). The effect of learning
versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex
task. Group and Organization Management, 21, 236on

250.

Zinnbauer, B., Pargament, K., &

Problems and

6,889-919.

of

Scott, A. (1999). The

religiousness and spirituality:

prospects. Journal of Personality, 67,

emerging meanings