Strategic Communications: A Consul’s Perspective
A few months ago, I met Carlos Ponce Martinez, Mexican Consul based in San Jose, California. During our first interaction, I mentioned that I had recently read an article on CNN about the number of people kidnapped in Mexico and how alarming this was for many potential tourists. He diplomatically blamed the media for sensationalizing this news and changed the topic. The readings this week prompted me to set up a meeting with him to discuss his feelings about strategic ambiguity in communications given his current role and his experiences with the Mexican political system.
During the first part of the interview, we discussed Eisenberg’s (1984) exploration of ambiguous communication. The consul personally regarded ambiguity as unacceptable as did the critics mentioned by Eisenberg (pp. 227 & 239). He mentioned that he tries to be clear when he communicates and appreciates clarity from others (personal communication, February 25, 2012). If he does not know something, he usually changes the topic or doesn’t answer the question, but his personal values prevent him from giving confusing messages that could have multiple interpretations and negative ramifications (personal communication, February 25, 2012). With the emergence of virtual communication channels, he stated that “people are more savvy and educated, so they demand better and clear communication from their representatives” (personal communication, February 25, 2012).
Without offending him, I raised the example cited by Einserberg (1984) regarding politicians and their strategies during news interviews when they want their messages to be interpreted in multiple ways (p. 236). He said ambiguous communication by politicians happened in the Mexico and in the US very frequently, but in his position he did not have to use this communication method because he was an appointed official, not an elected one. He shared examples of how politicians are using social media to create an image and send ambiguous messages, but fortunately his role does not depend on public opinion, so he can be very clear with his colleagues and partners (personal communication, February 25, 2012). He did agree with the fact that in his current role, he has to “balance between being understood, not offending others, and maintaining one’s own image” (Einsenberg, 194, p. 228). This means that he has to be very diplomatic in the way he approaches conversations and in some cases he uses the strategies outlined by Eisenberg which include “avoiding interaction altogether, remaining silent or changing topics” (p. 228) and the last two are his preferred options. Based on my personal observations of his interactions with his employees and potential partners though, I feel that he inadvertently uses strategic ambiguity to “facilitate relational development” (Eisenberg, 1984, p. 233).
In an effort to elicit his reaction, I walked him through the “one-way” communication model and asked him to share with me what he thought of it (Goodall et al., 2006, pp. 5-6). He pointed out that in Mexico this model would face some challenges since there are some people who would automatically question the trustworthiness of the communicators (personal communication, February 25, 2012). Finally, I shared the “five pragmatic principles to guide a new communications policy” (Goodall et al., 2006, pp. 10-11), and despite his disdain for ambiguous communications, he approved of each one, specifically the focus on cultural competence illustrated in strategies 3-5, and felt this would be a good communications approach for the US to follow in order to improve its image abroad (personal communication, February 25, 2012).
A few months ago, I met Carlos Ponce Martinez, Mexican Consul based in San Jose, California. During our first interaction, I mentioned that I had recently read an article on CNN about the number of people kidnapped in Mexico and how alarming this was for many potential tourists. He diplomatically blamed the media for sensationalizing this news and changed the topic. The readings this week prompted me to set up a meeting with him to discuss his feelings about strategic ambiguity in communications given his current role and his experiences with the Mexican political system.
During the first part of the interview, we discussed Eisenberg’s (1984) exploration of ambiguous communication. The consul personally regarded ambiguity as unacceptable as did the critics mentioned by Eisenberg (pp. 227 & 239). He mentioned that he tries to be clear when he communicates and appreciates clarity from others (personal communication, February 25, 2012). If he does not know something, he usually changes the topic or doesn’t answer the question, but his personal values prevent him from giving confusing messages that could have multiple interpretations and negative ramifications (personal communication, February 25, 2012). With the emergence of virtual communication channels, he stated that “people are more savvy and educated, so they demand better and clear communication from their representatives” (personal communication, February 25, 2012).
Without offending him, I raised the example cited by Einserberg (1984) regarding politicians and their strategies during news interviews when they want their messages to be interpreted in multiple ways (p. 236). He said ambiguous communication by politicians happened in the Mexico and in the US very frequently, but in his position he did not have to use this communication method because he was an appointed official, not an elected one. He shared examples of how politicians are using social media to create an image and send ambiguous messages, but fortunately his role does not depend on public opinion, so he can be very clear with his colleagues and partners (personal communication, February 25, 2012). He did agree with the fact that in his current role, he has to “balance between being understood, not offending others, and maintaining one’s own image” (Einsenberg, 194, p. 228). This means that he has to be very diplomatic in the way he approaches conversations and in some cases he uses the strategies outlined by Eisenberg which include “avoiding interaction altogether, remaining silent or changing topics” (p. 228) and the last two are his preferred options. Based on my personal observations of his interactions with his employees and potential partners though, I feel that he inadvertently uses strategic ambiguity to “facilitate relational development” (Eisenberg, 1984, p. 233).
In an effort to elicit his reaction, I walked him through the “one-way” communication model and asked him to share with me what he thought of it (Goodall et al., 2006, pp. 5-6). He pointed out that in Mexico this model would face some challenges since there are some people who would automatically question the trustworthiness of the communicators (personal communication, February 25, 2012). Finally, I shared the “five pragmatic principles to guide a new communications policy” (Goodall et al., 2006, pp. 10-11), and despite his disdain for ambiguous communications, he approved of each one, specifically the focus on cultural competence illustrated in strategies 3-5, and felt this would be a good communications approach for the US to follow in order to improve its image abroad (personal communication, February 25, 2012).
References
C. Martinez, personal communication, February 25, 2012. Interview conducted in Spanish.
Eisenberg, E.M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizations communication. Communication Monographs, 51,227-242.
Goodall, B., Trethewey, A., & McDonald, K. (2006). Strategic Ambiguity, communication and public diplomacy in an uncertain world: Principles and practices. Consortium for Strategic Communication, 1-14.
Interesting counterpoint to this week's readings, Adriana. If you were in Martinez's position, would you have the same communication style? Do you think the term 'strategic ambiguity' carries some negative connotations?
ReplyDeleteAdriana,
ReplyDeleteAs a communicator working in politics, I was amazed at how I often used 'strategic ambiguity' in my messaging documents as well as for the elected and appointed officials I draft items for. To Courtney's point it does carry some negative connotations, but it is also understood as a necessary evil to meet the need of so many internal and external stockholders with regards to public sector work.
I did find it interesting but not alarming that Martinez was offended by the comparison and immediately blamed the media. I believe personally that many people in public sector walk a fine line between 'strategic ambiguity' and withholding information. For some it is crucial for national or public safety for others it is a scapegoat for either not having an answer or not knowing the subject.
What i also found very intriguing was his suggestion that a good communication approach for the US to use is the “five pragmatic principles to guide a new communications policy” (Goodall et al., 2006, pp. 10-11). This seems to be a mutual issue for all governments who willing point the finger at the other side.
Anyway, off on a mini-tangent but really enjoyed your posting on the interview. Thank you for sharing.
Thanks, LaVenia. Yes, he did mention that the 5 principles would be applicable to other countries as well. Mexico's image with the cartel wars is in need of much needed improvement, but I think they need more crisis communication strategies which ironically would need to include 'ambiguos communications strategies'.
DeleteAdriana
Hi Courtney,
ReplyDeleteI honestly think he does not realize how much he really embraces 'ambiguity'. If I were in his postion, I would embrace strategic ambiguity as I do in my current job. Being "clear" is not always the best approach when you are trying to meet corporate, divisional and program goals and unify a team. In a counsel role, one has to deal with media, community, partners and navigating issues in two distinct political environments, so strategic ambiguity in communications would help meet multiple and conflicting goals as outlined by Eisenberg.
I think that 'strategic ambiguity' - especially when translated into Spanish carries a negative connotation. He comes from a political system with a history of corruption and injustices against the most vulnerable people in Mexico. Therefore, his view of any ambiguity carries a negative connotation. In fact, he brought up an example of a Mexican comic called Cantiflas, who became a Mexican icon, and who often used ambiguity in his dialogue. Martinez felt that those who use ambiguity as part of their communications strategy are just like Cantiflas (http://www.biographybase.com/biography/cantinflas.html) which I don't consider to be a compliment.
However, since I am bicultural, I embrace 'strategic ambiguity' in communications as a means to an an end. I do not take the same offense that Carlos did.
Adriana
Hi Adriana,
ReplyDeleteGreat job with the interview. I thought your point that he probably uses more strategic communication that he thinks he does is very insightful. It got me thinking about occasions when our personal goals for communication conflict with our strategic or organizational communication goals. It could be quite a dilemma! I wonder if there's a communication theory that covers that?