ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIVALENCE IN LEADERSHIP.

Role conflict here refers to the exposure of the individual in a given position to incompatible behavioral expectations. Though an apparent incompatibility may be resolved, avoided, or minimized in various ways, the conflicting demands cannot be completely and realistically fulfilled. Ambivalence is the subjectively sensed aspect of this conflict, or, from the behavioral point of view, the validation in behavior of the fact that the actor experiences difficulty of choice in the performance of given behavior alternatives. The empirical evidence supports the notion that institutional leadership positions are positions of high vulnerability, in the sense that our cultural imperatives impose mutually contradictory demands with which the institutional leader must deal. At least four major bi-polarities, or choice points, of special importance for leadership can be isolated, these polarities being a significant part of those "institutional realities" of American culture which must be kept in mind as backgrounds for the understanding of leader behavior. There is no implication that these polarities are exclusive to American culture, though their order of importance and their specific manifestations are in all likelihood unique. The specific role conflicts associated with these polarities can best be seen not simply as a single general category, but are analyzable into types of role conflict which have differential meaning for leaders.