T he 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.

Most research on organization-based identities focuses on a single level of analysis, typically the individual, group, or organization. As a spur to more cross-level identity research, we offer speculative discussions on two issues concerning nested identities. First, regarding the processes through which identities become linked across levels, we explore how identities at one level of analysis enable and constrain identities at other levels. We argue that, for a collective identity, intrasubjective understanding (“I think”) fosters intersubjective understanding (“we think”) through interaction, which in turn fosters generic understanding—a sense of the collective that transcends individuals (“it is”). Second, regarding the content of linked identities, we suggest that identities are relatively isomorphic across levels because organizational goals require some internal coherence. However, for various intended and unintended reasons, isomorphism is often impeded across levels, and identities tend to become somewhat differentiated.

Despite recognizing the importance of personal identification in organizations, researchers have rarely explored its dynamics. We define personal identification as perceived oneness with another individual, where one defines oneself in terms of the other. While many scholars have found that personal identification is associated with helpful effects, others have found it harmful. To resolve this contradiction, we distinguish between three paths to personal identification-threat-focused, opportunityfocused, and closeness-focused paths-and articulate a model that includes each. We examine the contextual features, how individuals' identities are constructed, and the likely outcomes that follow in the three paths. We conclude with a discussion of how the threat-, opportunity-, and closeness-focused personal identification processes potentially blend, as well as implications for future research and practice.

Research suggests that organizational members highly prize respect but rarely report adequately receiving it. However, there is a lack of theory in organizational behavior regarding what respect actually is and why members prize it. We argue that there are two distinct types of respect: generalized respect is the sense that "we" are all valued in this organization, and particularized respect is the sense that the organization values "me" for particular attributes, behaviors, and achievements. We build a theoretical model of respect, positing antecedents of generalized respect from the sender's perspective (prestige of social category, climate for generalized respect) and proposed criteria for the evaluation of particularized respect (role, organizational member, and character prototypicality), which is then enacted by the sender and perceived by the receiver. We also articulate how these two types of respect fulfill the receiver's needs for belonging and status, which facilitates the self-related outcomes of organizationbased self-esteem, organizational and role identification, and psychological safety. Finally, we consider generalized and personalized respect jointly and present four combinations of the two types of respect. We argue that the discrepancy between organizational members' desired and received respect is partially attributable to the challenge of simultaneously enacting or receiving respect for both the "we" and the "me."

When I turned in my letter, [the manager] said he was surprised and wanted to know what it would take to make me stay," says Anna. "I said that the working conditions were not conducive to effective performance, because I couldn't say the truth-that he made us all miserable. So two days later, he comes back with a new offer. I could have more money or fewer hours, but nothing else was any different. It's still the same toxic atmosphere." (An employee discussing her resignation in Robinson, 2008, p. 1) Retaining valued employees remains one of the most pressing managerial challenges today. Estimates suggest that the total costs associated with turnover can range from 90% to 200% of annual salary due to recruitment, selection, and training expenses (Boushey & Glynn, 2012; Cascio, 2015). Contributing to these costs, turnover often results in lost tacit knowledge, fewer seasoned mentors, work disruptions, damaged client relationships due to discontinuity, and an overall reduction in organizational effectiveness (Allen,