How Unrecognized Ambivalence Hampered the Democrats

And how surfacing dissent can help teams become stronger

How did Trump win this election? This is a question that many pundits, strategists, journalists, and ordinary Americans are asking this week. One turning point moment in this race that is worth looking at closely through a psychological lens is the decision process that the Democrats used to choose their candidate.  

Why did President Biden wait so long to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race? 

After the debate on June 27, there was increasing pressure from within the Democratic Party for Biden to withdraw. But why did it take this type of public failure to force the issue? Was Biden on the fence or determined to run?  Were those surrounding him unsure about his readiness to serve another term but going along with his decision to run out of loyalty?  Putting him on that debate stage took a massive amount of denial.  Nothing to see here, folks! 

A good friend of mine who is a political insider compared the Democratic party’s push for Biden to step down to taking the car keys away from an elderly parent who doesn’t want to face the reality of their decline.

Biden’s official announcement was on July 21, 2024, an entire month after his feeble performance at the presidential debate. 

Surely, there were political forces in the mix that we may someday be privy to, but the psychology of how Democrat insiders loyally supported, and then publicly opposed, Biden as their candidate is fascinating (and frightening)! It points to the human experience of ambivalence. Ambivalence, the simultaneous and contradictory thoughts or feelings (such as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action, is part of life but not comfortable to feel. And it played out here for the country to see.  Ambivalence can exist at the individual level (within Biden himself) or within groups (the Democratic party). And how we manage our ambivalence is what counts.

Sitting in the Middle

The ability to acknowledge one’s own ambivalence is, in fact, a developmental achievement, according to psychoanalyst Melanie Klein.  

Klein wrote about ambivalence from the 1930s through the 50s.  With her focus on children, Klein highlighted the path that children take from seeing the world through a black-and-white lens: all-good vs. all-bad.  As in, “Mommy who feeds me right when I want is all good, and mommy who makes me wait to be fed is all bad.” This is called “splitting,” and it’s a primitive defense mechanism that protects the child from overwhelming feelings.  Over time, she wrote, we learn to see the shades of gray in the world, integrate the things we like and don’t like about our loved ones, and come to a place where we can tolerate our ambivalence.  As in, “Mommy is just busy, but she’ll feed me soon. She’s the same mommy that gave me my breakfast right on time this morning.”

So, ambivalence is a sign of psychological maturity. Sitting in the middle of both sides of our ambivalence—acknowledging and understanding conflicting thoughts and emotions—is crucial for personal insight, decision-making, and healthy relationships. Whether we’re conflicted about our feelings for another person, a decision, or a situation, being able to tolerate the discomfort of competing truths to find our way leads to better decisions.

From the outside looking in, it was clear that there were those who loyally defended Biden and those who called for his withdrawal. In other words, the group embodied the collective defense mechanism of splitting. Positions of black and white— he must go, he must stay, with no room for uncertainty. 

What we didn’t hear about was a group that stood in the middle of these two positions and explored the two “sides” of their ambivalence.  This means thinking, “On the one hand, he’s done X, Y, and Z for the country.  But, on the other hand, can he continue to do X, Y, and Z effectively as president? And, if not Biden, who would have the best chance of defeating Trump?” As I’ve written before, the ability to embrace and use our ambivalence is increasingly missing in our world. And while outcomes are never a given, the process is what matters. When ambivalence is unrecognized and unused, our decision process suffers.

Overall, splitting in groups can lead to significant challenges in maintaining cohesion and addressing underlying issues. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for leaders and members to foster a more integrated and harmonious group environment.

Is This a Two-Way or One-Way Door?

Our decisions mold our lives, our communities, and, yes, our country. So, how do we master making decisions? It depends on what kind of decision we’re making. 

Jeff Bezos' concept of "one-way doors" and "two-way doors" is a decision-making framework he developed at Amazon.  He describes the difference in this video.

Two-way door decisions are those that are easily reversible and should be made quickly, often by individuals or small teams. These decisions do not have long-term consequences, allowing for flexibility and experimentation. Examples include A/B testing a feature or choosing between collaboration tools like Slack or Microsoft Teams. The key strategy for two-way door decisions is to "go fast," making the decision with about 70% of the necessary information to avoid unnecessary delays. This approach helps individuals and organizations stay agile and avoid getting bogged down in “analysis paralysis” for decisions that can easily be reversed if needed.

In contrast, one-way door decisions are consequential and hard to reverse, requiring careful deliberation and consultation. These decisions often involve significant long-term impacts, such as changing a company's core technology stack, selecting rocket propellants for a space mission, or nominating your party’s presidential candidate. The strategy here is to "go slow," ensuring that all relevant information is gathered and analyzed before proceeding. When emotions and loyalty toward a leader aren’t parsed out, as in the non-process of the Democratic party, the splitting of a group is acted out.  What should be a dispassionate consideration of the facts turns into a battle of who’s right instead of what’s right.

Recognizing the type of decision at hand is crucial, as mistaking a two-way door for a one-way door can lead to unnecessary slowdowns while treating one-way doors too lightly could result in costly mistakes. This decision-making framework helps us move faster on reversible choices while ensuring proper care for more consequential ones.

Splitting in Groups

In this election, we saw how splitting within groups fosters polarization, where members divide into "good" and "bad" subgroups. This "othering" mentality fuels emotional conflict and prevents cohesive decision-making. When splitting occurs, groups struggle to embrace the necessary ambivalence—acknowledging both positive and negative aspects of situations—leading to unbalanced choices. Instead of thoughtful deliberation and expanded optionality, groups like the Democratic party fall into cycles of blame and projection, directing negative emotions toward subgroups, failing to step back, slow down, and appreciate the one-way door decision.

Like any defense mechanism, splitting protects us from confronting uncomfortable feelings.  But the cost is high. We can find ourselves in a toxic environment that stifles cooperation and open dialogue. When splitting takes hold, groups risk making poor decisions based on simplistic "good vs. bad" narratives rather than engaging with the complexities needed for effective problem-solving.

Harnessing Your Group’s Ambivalence

Especially for one-way door decisions, it is essential to create a space where all perspectives are acknowledged and explored without judgment to bring out a group's ambivalence and promote open conversation. Ambivalence, the state of holding conflicting thoughts and feelings about a decision, can be a powerful tool for fostering deeper discussions and better decision-making. 

You can help your group use rather than defend against ambivalence by encouraging participants to voice both their positive and negative thoughts about an issue, using techniques such as reflective listening and open-ended questions to ensure that all sides of the ambivalence are heard. By avoiding the urge to push for a particular outcome or solution, you can prevent resistance and instead allow individuals to explore the pros and cons of different options openly. One example of inviting ambivalence into the discussion is to ask the group to argue against a given decision or to invite people to play out how things could go wrong with a given decision. 

Frances Frei, a professor at Harvard Business School, emphasizes the importance of encouraging dissent early in decision-making processes to improve outcomes. She advocates for creating environments where differing opinions are welcomed and respected, as this fosters a more comprehensive exploration of ideas. By surfacing dissent early, teams can engage in open dialogue, which helps avoid groupthink and leads to better decisions. Frei recommends prompts like, “Who can articulate a different perspective?”

This approach helps reduce defensiveness and promotes a collaborative atmosphere where participants feel safe expressing their uncertainties. Ultimately, embracing ambivalence leads to more thoughtful decision-making, as it ensures that all viewpoints are considered before reaching a conclusion.

Bring Ambivalence Out of the Shadows

• Have you ever been in a group where splitting took place?

• What were the costs of not facing or, better yet, inviting ambivalence into the group’s dialogue?

• How can you use these concepts and tools to improve your group’s decision process?