Did you notice that even our selected readings this week failed to reach a consensus on the subject? I've indicated some passages that illustrate this discord in the table below:
| FROM CLARITY & REPETITION... | ...TOWARD AMBIGUITY & DIVERSITY |
|
|
Yet a careful reading of Eisenberg's article reveals that clarity and strategic ambiguity are not truly dichotomous concepts. Rather, we must change the way we think about clarity. I believe what Eisenberg is rejecting as futile is a fanatical devotion to clarity as a mechanical exercise. Goodall, Tretheway, and McDonald put it very well: "message clarity and perception of meaning is a function of relationships, not strictly a function of word usage" (2006, p. 11).
For my blog entry this week, I wanted to share with you some highlights from a recent (May 2012) interview with Eisenberg that was conducted here in my home city of Atlanta. Interviewer Barry Mike notes that the corporate landscape has changed considerably in the almost 30 years since Eisenberg first put forward his notion of strategic ambiguity.
Today, in a world in which the language of ambiguity, “plausible deniability” and selective disclosure has been used to mask ethical lapses, fiduciary irresponsibility and outright malfeasance, there is a growing hue and cry for openness and transparency.In the brief interview, Eisenberg shares several illuminating, real-world examples of why strategic ambiguity makes sense as a communication management approach. He says ambiguity has an "important role in maintaining relationships" (Mike, 2012), citing the examples of providing tactful feedback to employees or vendors. And Eisenberg's endorsement of using strategic ambiguity to communicate an organization's vision and mission has even greater teeth now than it did in 1984 thanks to today's increasingly global corporation with its "different groups in different parts of the world having different goals and speaking different languages" (Mike, 2012). Eisenberg even provides several examples of strategic ambiguity in the political arena, including President Obama's famous "yes, we can" slogan (Mike, 2012).
In that context, we decided to take advantage of an opportunity to revisit Professor Eisenberg’s original insights with him, and look at whether they remained relevant in a very different world from the one in which they originated. (Mike, 2012)
One exchange in the interview may deserve further discussion. Eisenberg addresses the impact of a Web-enabled "24/7 news cycle" on strategic ambiguity, acknowledging that while communicators need to tailor messages to fit different audiences, "what you say to one audience will be quickly picked up by lots and lots of other audiences" (Mike, 2012). Eisenberg's only answer to this problem? Communicate with still greater ambiguity.
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.
Goodall, B., Trethewey, A., & McDonald, K. (2006, June 21). Strategic ambiguity, communication, and public diplomacy in an uncertain world: Principles and practices. Paper presented at the Consortium for Strategic Communication, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.
Mike, B. (2012, May). Openness and clarity are overrated: An interview with professor Eric Eisenberg. Conducted at the Communication Leadership Exchange Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from http://strategicleadershipcommunication.com
Leslie, interesting that you picked up on the tensions present in this week's reading. I think one of the main struggles this week is to try to separate the word "ambiguous" from the way it is typically used, which is to describe a negative attribute of a message. I know this because I hear it from students all the time ("the assignment is too ambiguous!). If you went to the managers in Argenti et al.'s (2005) piece and said, "do you think you should be more ambiguous when you communicate to stakeholders," you know they would have a very quick response. Do you think if you explained what is meant by strategic ambiguity they would change their mind? Do you think they use this technique and don't realize it?
ReplyDeleteI think the comment on the 24/7 news cycle is extremely interesting. Even if a message is strategically ambiguous, it is rare that citizens hear the message unadulterated, with no additional framing. Arguments these days tend to be prepackaged for us, so our original interpretation is no longer necessary. I would be interested to hear some examples of how Eisenberg would suggest a current political figure communicate.
I too had a hard time with Eisenberg's disparagement of clarity and precision. One can be ambiguous AND clear AND precise. It's just a question of selection, isn't it? I think Eisenberg's bottom line is: don't feel like you have to bare all. It's funny, but ever since the week's readings I've been seeing a lot of strategic ambiguity in my own personal life. Sometimes long-form truth can get you in trouble, whereas a controlled "truth economy" doled in careful quantities can keep you out of the doghouse!
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your focus on "message clarity and perception of meaning [being] a function of relationships."
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be true in almost any situation I can think of. Internal corporate communications nearly always look different than external corporate communications. Stakeholders in any organization have different needs and must be communicated to differently. The proper balance between ambiguity and clarity needs to be maintained for each audience.