Week 5 Application Assignment - Cathy Williams

A Glimpse into the C-Suite: Embracing Strategic Ambiguity

On more than one occasion during the course of my career, a supervisor has articulated the goal (usually expressed as a complaint) of trying to convince corporate executives to include the public relations team in strategy discussions. In other words, PR needs ready access to the C-suite in order to provide the best possible strategic advice (Argenti, P.A, Howell, R.A., & Beck, K.A., 2005, p. 84). If C-level executives – CEOs, CIOs, CMOs, CFOs, etc. – exclude PR from their inner circles, then the obvious question is: why?

This week’s readings offer a possible reason and, taken together with an additional journal article discussed below, suggest a viable solution to this dilemma.

Argenti et al (2005) conducted a study and found agreement amongst communications executives that clear messaging is a strategy for success (p. 87). Eisenberg (1984) pointed out that journals targeting working professionals also argue for “open communication” as an effective strategy (p. 228). Herein lies the problem, which Eisenberg (1984) pointed out: strategic use of communication can still be effective even when it is not clear (p. 228).

So in one corner office, we have may have a public relations executive who learned – either by formal education or on the job – that clearly articulating messages leads to effective results. In the penthouse suite, we have the CEO whose day is marked by turbulence and constant change (Morgan, 1998, p. 55) and who learned – either by formal education or on the job – that savvy senior executives often must employ ambiguity to achieve their goals (Eisenberg, 1984, pg. 228).  In short, the paradigms from which each operates are as different as the office furnishings.

For some communicators, adopting strategic ambiguity might present a challenge, especially if prevailing wisdom advocates for clarity. However, Jarzabkowksi, Sillince, & Shaw (2010) suggested a view of strategic ambiguity that can serve as a solution for anyone who might struggle with this concept.

First, it is necessary to make the transition from clarity to strategic ambiguity, which can be achieved by considering these points: 1) an empowerment factor exists in ambiguity because it allows receivers of messages to develop their own interpretations of meaning (Goodall, Trethewey, & McDonald, 2006, p. 2); 2) when meanings are interpreted based on each individual receiver, there will naturally be conflicting points of view (Eisenberg, 1984, p. 287); 3) persuasion is needed to reconcile the divergent viewpoints (Jarzabkowski et al, 2010, p. 220).

Additionally, the link between the two concepts is shared and must be revised in order to fully understand how they work (Eisenberg, 1984, p. 229). Several scholars (Eisenberg, 1984; Jarzabkowski et al, 2010; Goodall et al, 2006) described ambiguity as a tool for building relationships because its lack of fixed meaning results in further dialogue between people who may not interpret messages the same way, frequently because of cultural differences. However, it was Eisenberg (1984) who proposed that each is a “relational variable” influenced by the “source, message, and receiver factors” (p. 229). In other words neither clarity nor ambiguity is strictly a product of the message alone. In fact, when a message is clearly stated the range of interpretations is narrow; when a message is ambiguous, there exists a wide range of possible interpretations (Eisenberg, 1984, p. 229). Rather than being two mutually exclusive ideas, clarity and ambiguity exist on a continuum that ranges from no possible interpretations to numerous possible interpretations (Eisenberg, 1984, p. 229). Therefore, these concepts co-exist and as such, one must decide which best serves the strategic objective.

In the event that ambiguity is the optimum course of action from a communication perspective, the next step is learning how to embrace its use despite years of training to the contrary. Jarzabkowksi et al (2010) explored strategic ambiguity and proposed a viable solution. Relying on the work of previous scholars (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2003; Wallace and Hoyle, 2006), Jarzabkowski et al (2010) built on the idea of multiple points of view: “ambiguity involves contested interpretations, in which different groups must be persuaded to act collectively” (p. 220). The art of persuasion belongs to rhetoric, so it is conceivable that “strategic ambiguity is an example of a rhetorical device” (Jarzabkowski et al, 2010, pg. 220). In this article, the team of researchers went on to conduct a study of ambiguity as an aspect of rhetoric and found that it has the potential to encourage shared action among multiple stakeholders (Jarzabkowski et al, 2010, p. 240).

Perhaps some public relations pros need to consider the work of Eisenberg (1984), Goodall et al (2006), and Jarzabkowski (2010) and learn to proactively recommend ambiguity as an effective communication strategy. In doing so, executives reluctant to allow PR into the C-Suite might finally realize that the public relations team is fully capable of understanding broader corporate realities, adept at speaking the C-Suite language, and deserves to be at the strategy table. 

References

Eisenberg, E.M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication.

Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242. Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu

Goodall, B., Trethewey, A., & McDonald, K. (2006). Strategic communication and strategic

ambiguity in the Middle East: principles and practices (Report No. 0604). Arizona State  

University: Consortium for Strategic Communication. Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu

Jarzabkowksi, P., Sillince, J.A.A., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical

resource for enabling multiple interests. Human Relations, 63(2), 219-248.

Morgan, G. (1998). Nature intervenes: organizations as organisms. Images of organization: the

executive edition (pp. 35-66). Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu