Several of our readings this week discuss the concept of
Strategic Ambiguity, and why it is an extremely sound way of conducting
organizational communication.
Eisenberg (1994) suggests that communicators should make a
conscious shift from a strict adherence to clarity in their messages to
receivers towards a more contingent, strategic orientation (p. 228). This is the essence of Strategic Ambiguity;
the ability to vary your language and leave room for multiple interpretations,
while achieving the same desired effect across all receivers with your
message. The messages you send to
receivers must remain ambiguous, with a lack of specific detail, absence of a
course of action, and a perceived equivocality of the message across your
receivers (Putnam and Sorenson, 1982).
This allows your organization to achieve what Eisenberg
refers to as, ‘unified diversity’ (p. 230).
By remaining ambiguous in your messages, you allow your receivers to come
away with the main points, but still allow for their own unique
interpretation. While this may be a
slippery slope if your message is not constructed correctly, if executed
properly this can be a very fruitful tactic for maintaining organizational
flexibility and for curtailing your message to whatever the situation dictates.
But what if this communication strategy falls into the wrong
hands? Jim Paul and Christy Strbiak
tackled this issue in their 1997 article, ‘The Ethics of Strategic Ambiguity’,
and put the responsibility squarely on the communicator to remain ethical in
their use of this style.
The authors stated that individuals possess two types of
cognitive maps in regards to ethics; espoused-ethics and ethics-in-use (p.
152). Espoused-ethics refer to the
ethical systems that inform their behavior, while ethics-in-use are the systems
that actually govern their behavior (p. 152).
Put more simply, espoused-ethics are the lofty ideals we know should
govern our ethical choices, and ethics-in-use are the factors that actually
determine the choices we make.
This intrapersonal ethical examination is essential to using
Strategic Ambiguity in the correct fashion (p. 157). If we make our choices on how to use this
philosophy with our espoused-ethics in mind, we will always use Strategic
Ambiguity not only correctly, but also ethically (p. 157). Once we allow ethics-in-use – or outside
influences from a CEO or high-level executive – to govern our choices to simply
meet the bottom line, our ethics are compromised.
As communicators, it is perhaps our most important job to
remain ethically sound, especially when dealing with Strategic Ambiguity. We must be aware of the power our messages
can wield, and be constantly mindful of sending those messages in a strong
ethical fashion. Maintaining our
integrity as people in our work environment is something that should always be
possible, no matter how ambiguous our message.
While ambiguity can allow us to remain flexible and reach various
stakeholders in a variety of situations, if these messages are not grounded in
strong ethics, they will eventually create a lack of trust towards your
organization. It is up to us, if we
choose to be ambiguous in our strategic endeavors, to always keep our moral
compass intact. If we do, we will always
be able to reach any stakeholder, and get them to buy in to our message – even
if it means something different to each person it reaches.
References
Eisenberg,
E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, pp. 227-242.
Paul,
J. and Strbiak, C. (1997). The ethics of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Communication, 34,
pp. 149-159.
Putnam, L. and Sorenson, R. (1982). Equivocal messages in
organizations. Human Communication Research, 8, pp. 114-132.
Nice discussion, Andrew. Eisenberg (1984) echoes this issue, writing, "whether a strategy is ethical depends upon the ends to which it is used, and whether it is effective depends upon the goals of the individual communicators" (p. 239). Can you give us an example of when you think strategic ambiguity has been motivated by questionable ethics? It could be real or imagined. Do you think unethical strategic ambiguity is different than intentional deception?
ReplyDeleteCourtney,
ReplyDeleteThanks very much for the response. I think examples of unethical strategic ambiguity are fairly common, which is what I feel is one of the problems with this type of organizational strategy.
At the end of the day, what Paul and Strbiak (1997) dubbed, 'ethics-in-use' are the driving factors behind almost every business-related decision that's made. We all have bottom lines to meet, customers to maintain, and profits to ensure. Additionally, we have families to support and in some cases, children to feed. If a higher-up wants you to omit certain information to remain 'ambiguous', in an American economy that is currently in an unfortunate state, you are more than likely going to obey orders whether you agree with them or not.
Herein lies the problem with strategic ambiguity, in my opinion. I feel that if the CEOs of the company want to omit certain information or remain ambiguous in their messages to stakeholders, then that is their choice. But once it becomes the burden of lower-level managers whose sole responsibility is to carry out the demands of the higher-ups, the ethical dilemma can become increasingly prevalent.
An example of this might be in the way a cigarette company chooses to relay health-related information about its products to stakeholders, most notably consumers. Saying that 'cigarette smoking can lead to certain types of Cancer' is a relatively ambiguous message. But it also omits any statistics about the incredibly grim evidence behind that claim, so a consumer may not do any further research. By intentionally omitting these facts, the company is deliberately trying to withhold pertinent information that may be a detriment to their bottom line. And in my opinion, that is unethical.
To answer your second question, no, I do not feel unethical strategic ambiguity is different than intentional deception. If we do withhold information from our message, most of the time it is going to be negative. Simply making your message broad is not unethical, but when the message has a negative tone, I believe withholding information makes the act unethical, and intentionally deceptive. It is definitely a slippery slope, and one that if you decide to travel down, can lead to major repercussions for your organization.
Thanks again for the response!
Hey Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your analysis, and it hits home with something that I have personally faced in my professional career. I can't go into a great deal of detail, but I had a situation where a senior manager was pressuring me to use messaging to our customer base that walked a very thin line between truth and fiction. In this instance, the messaging that was desired by the senior manager was deliberately ambiguous. As we read this week, that message could be interpreted in any number of different ways. And that was the intent of my senior manager because it dealt with a sensitive issue relating to customer service. They did not want to come out and present the facts, but wanted a generalization of opinion that might not be as damaging to the company.
You spoke of espoused ethics versus ethics in use. I was taught, very early in life, that my word, no matter what the situation, was my bond. And if you "practiced what your preached," you would always tell the truth, the whole truth. I'd like to think that my espoused ethics are right in line with my ethics in use.
Having that background and those thought processes, I could not in good conscience deliver the messaging, which would have my name attached to it. There were some very heated discussions between me and several members of the management team. But I am proud to say that I did not compromise my integrity nor my values in the situation. The messaging was delivered, but I was in no way connected to it. I had stood my ground, willing to pay the consequences, but had maintained my reputation as a trustworthy member of the organization, at least to people outside of the company.
DT
David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. That's a great example of what I was talking about in my post. The only problem with your post, in my opinion, is that everyone probably has a story like that from a certain point in their careers, and therein lies the problem.
We live in a society where the bottom line, at the end of the day, is the most important thing. How we achieve that bottom line is really of no concern, at least in some of the examples I've heard about. I just thought this was really interesting as a topic, because if we do not have our ethical standards, how can we ever look back on our careers and feel fulfilled? We have to be behind what we are doing as people, I think, in order for us to achieve our potential.
I was definitely happy to hear about your example, though. Nice to know there are still some good people out there! Appreciate the response!
I enjoyed your posting! And while I do think some ambiguity is OK, it is also extremely necessary to tell the whole story with transparency and truth. Leaving messages up for interpretation will do several things. First, I think it will make people stop reading the communications. If they don't get a clear answer on what the communication is trying to say, why bother reading it? They have so many more important things to think about. Second, people will get the wrong message. If you are trying to say one thing, and it is interpreted another, that's just an example of bad communication! And third, if the internal communicator isn't clear about the message they are trying to send, it might cause rumor mills and all kinds of water cooler gossip.
ReplyDeleteI think open, honest, transparent communication is the key to having an effective corporate communications strategy. It will gain trust and confidence from the organization, and in the end, that's one of the most important--and difficult--things you can do.