INTRODUCTION:

The contemporary organizations are facing uncertainty due to technological advancements, globalization, changing taste, preferences and behavior of the consumer (Katsaros, Tsirikas and Nicolaidis, 2014). According to Schmidt et al., (2014) employees in the organizations are also experiencing uncertainty due to downsizing, outsourcing, expanded roles, role ambiguity and continuous learning as well as innovation. Due to complexity and uncertainty that prevail in the contemporary organization employees those who embrace ambiguity can perform in the organization. According to Katsaros and Nicolaidis (2012), the way individuals perceive, reacts and interpret the situation determine their tolerance of ambiguity.

According to Benjamin, Riggio, and Mayes (1996) the tolerance of ambiguity is a complex construct and is affected by one’s perception, personality, emotion, values and attitudes.

Tolerance of Ambiguity: Concept:

The term tolerance of ambiguity emphasizes on sociological aspects. But the cognitive-psychological reactions of individual towards ambiguity stimuli is a recent one. The concept ambiguity has been viewed differently by different researchers. Some researchers consider who are unclear about interpretation are considered as weaker than other people (Jaensch, 1938).

Budner (1962) define ambiguous situation which is not structured, clearly defined, lack of sufficient cues, unclear, confusing and can be understood in more than one way. Research studies reveal tolerance of ambiguity is not being studied in work specific context. In the same manner, the outcome of such construct in the organization context is also not known yet. The study of tolerance of ambiguity at workplace specific context and outcome at work context is needed. The term tolerance of ambiguity has been defined in different field differently. The description of ambiguity in Economics is being defined by Ellsberg in the context of risk and uncertainty.

Tolerance of ambiguity is different from intolerance of ambiguity. The tolerance of ambiguity refers to people perceive and accept ambiguous situations as acceptable, whereas intolerance of ambiguity refers to people perceive the ambiguous situations as threat. The ambiguity of tolerance is considered as the individual cognitive sensitivity to ambiguous stimuli which has neuropsychological function.

The term ambiguity tolerance can be better understood when the concept of ambiguity is defined. The term ambiguity is a perception of how one perceives the stimulus. Ambiguity tolerance is the individuals tendency to react to the ambiguous stimulus or situation either greater or lesser intensity. The ambiguous of tolerance does not always create stress but sometimes create attractiveness. For example : suspense as well as mysterious character in a story induces anxiety and also interest. One can get anticipated satisfaction when story is told and ambiguity is eliminated.

Tolerance of Ambiguity: Research Findings at Workplace:

Neurological research reveals that ambiguity creates more anxiety. According to Budner (1962), perception of ambiguity can be threatening. The possible alternative outcome or options may not be achieved in ambiguity (Hirsch et al., 2012). Individuals averse to ambiguity when they perceive it will produce negative outcome. According to McLain (2009), curiosity and attraction taken place when ambiguity excludes harm or negative consequences.

Ambiguity is attractive when the threat is minimal. One is experiencing anxiety, when the ambiguity is resolved. One is not experiencing personal threat at the time of ambiguity. Due to threat people are attracted to ambiguity. The potential threat is being hidden by ambiguity in certain situations, so it is not desired. The risk taking as well as thrill seeking behavior is in conflict with ambiguity, so threat is undesirable. There is a positive relationship between two traits such as risk taking and ambiguity tolerance. According to McLain (1993) both predicts behavior towards situations. The risk taking propensity is often associated with the situations having potential harm.

According to McLain (1993), various types of stimulus can be ambiguous. Out of which unfamiliarity is one, which is associated with the anxiety of ambiguity. Even though there is a difference between complexity and unfamiliarity, but the ambiguity perceived by the individuals are same. In order to understand the complexity of stimulus, time and effort is required. Situational interpretations which is undistinguishable is also ambiguous.

Tolerance of ambiguity is different from tolerance of ambiguity as a personality measure. Researchers found that tolerance of ambiguity is continual in nature (Durrheim and Foster, 1997). The measurement tool of tolerance of ambiguity is very general and not assessing it (tolerance of ambiguity) at workplace settings adequately (Herman et al., 2010).

Research studies also found that there is a relationship between:

· Tolerance of ambiguity and decision making (Furnham and Marks, 2013).

· Tolerance of ambiguity and job performance (Yousef, 2017).

· Tolerance of ambiguity and critical thinking (Facione and Sanchez, 1994).

Studies found that there is a relationship between ambiguity and employee wellbeing. According to Schmidt et al., (2014) employees those who experience role ambiguity have more mental health issues such as depression and anxiety. The role clarity defined role responsibilities, and job objectives. It not only reduces the role ambiguity but also contribute to the health of the employee. It also reduces the costs associated with absenteeism, poor job performance and health impairment.

Tolerance of Ambiguity: Measures

The most widely used Tolerance of Ambiguity scale developed by Budner (1962) which is a 16 item scale. The ambiguous situations are being divided into three categories:

a) New (Cues are Unfamiliar/unknown)

b) Complex (Cues are many)

c) Contradictory (Cues are oppose to each other)

Budner scale is criticized for weak psychological properties, low internal consistency (Furnham and Marks, 2013) and wording of some items, lack of ambiguity (McLain, 2009).

Rydell and Rosen (1966) developed 16 items of true-false scale of tolerance of ambiguity. Later Mc Donald (1970) evaluated psychometric measure and added 4 items.

Mc Lain (1993) developed 16 items known as “Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance (MSTATA) to assess tolerance of ambiguity which has been revised in 2009 having 13 items measure.

Louriola et. Al., (2016) developed multidimensional ambiguity scale having 30 items. It consists of three factors:

a) Affective (Discomfort with ambiguity)

b) Cognitive (Moral abstractism /splitting)

c) Epistemic (Need for complexity and novelty)

This scale demonstrated good reliability and validity. It represents psychometrically sound measure of tolerance of ambiguity.

Though the various scales have been developed to measure tolerance of ambiguity, but none of the scale has been measured tolerance of ambiguity at workplace. Tolerance of ambiguity is different from tolerance of ambiguity as a personality measure. Researchers found that tolerance of ambiguity is contextual in nature (Durrheim and Foster, 1997). The measurement tool of tolerance of ambiguity is very general and not assessing it (tolerance of ambiguity) at workplace settings adequately (Herman et al., 2010). There is a need to develop the scale of the individual attitude towards tolerance of ambiguity. Researchers are also focusing on whether tolerance of ambiguity is the predictor of work related behaviour and outcomes.

Tolerance of Ambiguity: Opportunity for Research:

According to Weick et al., (2005) operation of tolerance of ambiguity at organizational level requires suitable design and policy. Hirsch et al., (2012) developed the entrophy model of uncertainty which is considered as the future research for tolerance of ambiguity. The neuroscience and information theory is the base of research which will reduce uncertainty, and other forms of complexity in an effective way. The ambiguity of tolerance is a research in the areas such as :

· Perception of the consumer (Hazen et al., 2012)

· Leadership ability among Nurse (Brady, German and Cummins, 2010)

· Medical Education (Luther and Crandall, 2011)

· Decision making among professionals (Appelt et al., 2011)

· Communication among business professionals (Russ, 2012)

· Safety during adolescent (Tymula et al., 2012)

Besides, this tolerance of ambiguity is a research topic in several other areas where perception of stimulus/ situation has different reactions which influence interpretation and behavioral choice. According to Schick et al., (2013) neurological research also emphasizing upon the physiology of the brain, its functions and perceptions of the ambiguous stimuli.

Ambiguity of tolerance also provide a valuable insights into the connection of memories in decision making. Career choice linked with ambiguity of tolerance. Preferring jobs with different career also leads to ambiguity. Ambiguity is also associated with occupation related to different career.

The entrepreneurs who are owners of the organization face ambiguous compared to those who are not the owners of the organization (Begley and Boyd, 1988). Researchers raise question whether ambiguity tolerance as the personality trait of the entrepreneur and emphasizing on whether it leads to stress or satisfaction among the entrepreneur. The planning and strategy of the business related with ambiguity. In the business, the development of the new product plays a very important role not only for the business to grow but also remain competitive (Constellion and Maridam, 2013). Ambiguity of tolerance is related with uncertainty and risks associated with development of new product. The new product development deals with creativity is also related with ambiguity of tolerance (Lane and Klenke, 2004).

Tolerance of ambiguity is broadly divided into three categories such as i) measurement, ii) Correlates, and iii) Predictive research. The various correlates or links with tolerance of ambiguity exists in social and psychological sciences such as cross cultural environment, management, education and health sciences. Tolerance of ambiguity is considered as the important leadership quality (Mc Nally et al., 2009).

CONCLUSION:

Ambiguity of tolerance as a future research and considerable work on it is yet to be done. There is still work to be done for measurement of scale of ambiguity tolerance due to advance in research in understanding brain function. The measures of tolerance of ambiguity has to be align with individuals neurological response to the ambiguity. The tolerance of ambiguity has been addressed and reviewed by various researchers such as Budner (1962), MacDonald (1970), Norton (1975), and Mc Fain (1993, 2009). However, still work to be done on measurement. Research required on types of situation initiate or influence brain activity which leads to ambiguity. Tolerance of ambiguity is considered as the useful variable in various fields because of role as moderator between situational variables and cognitive as well as behavioral reactions. The ambiguity tolerance and situational reaction threshold to ambiguity requires further study.

REFERENCES:

1. McLain D.L. Kefallonitis E., and Armani K. Ambiguity tolerance in organisations: Definitional clarification and perspectives on future research, Frontiers in Psychology. 2015 DOI: 10,3389/psyg.2015,00344.

2. Hancock, J. and Mattick, K. Tolerance of ambiguity and psychological wellbeing in medical training : A systematic review, Medical Education Review. 2020; 54: 125-137, doi: 10.1111/ medu14031.

3. Connor, P., Becker, K. and Fewster, Kerryn. Tolerance of Ambiguity at work predicts leadership, job performance, and creativity. 2018

4. Furnham A., Marks J. Tolerance of ambiguity: A Review of recent literature. Psychology. 2013; 4(9): 717-728. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102.

5. https://www.studyabroad.purdue.edu/resource/InterculturalLearning/TolanceAmbiguity.pdf.

6. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1andtype=pdfanddoi=91c3fff5a3a78e6ce4e3e295489be8358ce358c5.

7. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/120614/1/Tolerance%20of%20Ambiguity_2018.pdf

8. https://www.e3sconferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2020/70/e3sconf_itse2020_19007.pdf

9. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82864042.pdf

Received on 12.06.2025 Revised on 24.07.2025

Accepted on 28.08.2025 Published on 07.11.2025

Available online from November 17, 2025

Asian Journal of Management. 2025;16(4):285-288.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2025.00042

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.