This week’s readings on strategic
communication, particularly the concept of strategic ambiguity illustrated by
Eisenberg (1984), struck a chord with me, especially when considering when
strategic ambiguity might be employed and considered useful and even ethical.
When Eisenberg explains “clarity is only a
measure of communicative competence if the individual has as his or her goal to
be clear” (p. 230), it made me wonder about instances where a lack of clarity
might be the goal.
As communicators, we have a duty to first
determine the goal of our communication before planning and executing a
strategy. If hypothetically, in a crisis situation, there is so little
information we know that being ambiguous is not the same as being evasive, is a
goal to “continuously monitor the situation,” a phrase often heard from
communicators in these sorts of situations, ethically reasonable or merely a
case of blame-shifting?
Paul & Strbiak (1997) provide us with a
framework to make these decisions. Their work focuses on three key elements
whose congruence or incongruence determines the ethics of strategic ambiguity:
behavior, espoused-ethics and ethics-in-use (p. 153). While the ideal situation
ethically is for all three of these to be congruent, there is one possible
situation where the communicator can have incongruence and still be considered
ethical: if the behavior matches up with the espoused-ethics.
Consider the hypothetical situation outlined
above. Our espoused-ethics are to provide the best, most clear information possible,
but if our ability to do so is cloudy and we act on our best knowledge, is this
still considered ethical? Paul & Strbiak might argue that this is correct,
as our “continuously monitor the situation” holding statement behavior matches
up with these espoused-ethics.
In fact, they say just this: “Strategic
ambiguity is ethical when communicative behaviors are congruent with
communicators’ rational, logically consistent espoused-ethics” (p. 157) What I
find most interesting about this argument is that the decision to utilize
strategic ambiguity does not become unethical in and of itself; the much larger
question regards the communicators’ (and organization’s) ethics and whether
there is a rationale and logic behind it or not. In other words, if our hypothetical
crisis were occurring and we kept with a holding statement, it would be ethical
as it falls in line with our overarching goal of informing as most possible.
I am interested to hear what my fellow
students think about this link between ethics and strategic ambiguity. Is it
enough to simply communicate the information on hand, in the vein of “first, do
no harm,” or is there an ethical imperative to communicate “the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth?”
References
Argenti, P. A., Howell, R. A., & Beck, K. A. (2005). The
strategic communication imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3),
83-89.
Eisenberg,
E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication
Monographs, 51, 227-242.
Paul,
J., & Strbiak, C.A. (1997) The ethics of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Communication, 34(2), 149-159.
"Strategic ambiguity is ethical when communicative behaviors are congruent with communicators’ rational, logically consistent espoused-ethics."
ReplyDeleteThere's more to ethics than internal consistency. What if your ethos is malignant toward others and you are consistent with it -- does that validate strategic ambiguity? External impact can't be taken out of the equation.
I don't see an ethical imperative in telling the truth, the whole truth etc. Corporations will always consider their self-interest and strike a balance between telling *enough* truth and watching the bottom line. It's a balancing act.
Andrew, this seems like a enlightening article especially because many of the students are struggling with the ethics of strategic ambiguity. Will brings up a good point about the tricky nature of consistency. How would these authors address that problem?
ReplyDeleteThe question of whether organizations should tell nothing but the truth is an interesting one. As we will talk about in the week on financial statements, I believe public organizations have a duty to their stockholders to be transparent in their financials. But then does that preclude the public organization from using strategic ambiguity when discussing long-term goals?
It certainly was an interesting article, especially as it attempted to distill the ethics of strategic ambiguity into a diagram with hard and fast rules. Will's point about the inconsistency is well-received, and I think the authors might address the problem by considering that a malignant ethos might not be necessarily thought of as rational and logically consistent. It might make those producing the obfuscating statement sleep better at night, but it may not be ethical or be able to pass these authors' tests for effective use of strategic ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to giving this concept further consideration, particularly in the next week's discussion on financial communication. I too believe that public organizations have a duty to be transparent, but at first thought, I would say that the organization could still use strategic ambiguity, given that the long-term goal might be in an unpredictable environment where making a bold statement could later turn out to be off-base.