Strategic Ambiguity

[@orgcomm]

Take a look at Alex's Case Study Book: www.amazon.com/Case-Studies-Courageous-Organizational-Communication/dp/1433131242/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1483651791&sr=1-1

[@DaGeneralPatton]

I enjoyed this. I am a student at USC Annenberg. After reading an Eisenberg article, I was not clear on this concept. Thank you.

[@orgcomm]

Hi DaGeneral Patton. I used to live in LA years ago. I actually visited a communication graduate class at USC one night. I ended up going to CU Boulder but I was impressed by the students and faculty there. I'm glad the video helped.

[@RezaMoussavi]

Very useful. I always had the struggle for increasing clarification but now I see the benefits of not being precise in some cases. That takes effort to apply but it definitely worths it’s utility. Thanks for sharing.

[@orgcomm]

Hi Reza. I'm glad the video was helpful. Thank you for the encouragement. :-)

[@StudioVehga]

Somewhat helpful, and me without a paradox inhibitor...As a Business student I am interested in this subject matter and i thought the presentation was structured well and explained clearly, I believe the final delivery of orginizational ambiguity will swing greatly in its purpose from service based to product creation type of firms where the flow of effort is inwards instead of customer centric. It's good to start with a few firm definitions so interesting to hear you break this down.

[@kathiannlittle3098]

Strategic HR professional here and omg love this explanation 👏🏽

[@kathiannlittle3098]

As well as the suggestions provided to deal with them.

[@MiaAmorr1]

In addition, there are no gray areas to the truth. Either it’s truth or a lie, there is no in between.

[@TheFBIorange]

Another potential dimension of ambiguity I see commonly is goal ambiguity. I often see unclear goals set when faced with uncertainty about how to solve a problem. When the goal is ambiguous, it has poorly defined goal criteria and/or timelines. Without these, it is difficult to determine when the problem is failing to be addressed. Goal ambiguity can even allow for problems to be falsely presented as solved or on time.

[@orgcomm]

You make a great point, TheFBlorange. When leaders articulate a vague, imprecise goal, they can take credit for a victory even if it is not obvious what the actual criteria was in the first place. Or, similarly they can avoid blame if the criteria is fuzzy and they didn't reach the apparent goal. That makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for your contribution. I tried to stick pretty close to the Eisenberg's article but now I wish I'd included that, perhaps under the part about plausible deniability.

[@TheFBIorange]

Appreciate the response! I have been blasting though your channel recently, its great. I work in IT Security, which has quite an intense organizational component to it. I figured I would start looking in to some theory to put to use in the future. Keep it up!

[@orgcomm]

Well, I'm glad you've found the videos helpful. I also have another channel, Communication Coach, with lots more videos. It's geared more toward professionals looking to for communication and leadership improvement. It's some theory/concepts but geared toward professional development. kzbin.info

[@PrakashSundaramVedicWisdom]

Great one! thanks, Alex. with respects, Prakash

[@orgcomm]

Thanks, Prakash. Glad it was helpful.

[@willemf1988]

I would appreciate learning which source I should reference (in a scientific article) for the definition of strategic ambiguity, provided in this excellent talk, as "the way people may communicate unclearly but still accomplish their goals"). It is not in Eisenberg (1984).

[@orgcomm]

Hi, Willem. That is a very close paraphrase but not a direct quote, from Eric Eisenberg himself. It sounds like you have access to his 1984 article. It is the central theme of that article and he writes something very close to that wording on p. 228 (but, it is not an exact quote so look that up on your own to be sure you cite it accurately). He's repeated the idea in various ways over the years in almost everything he's written about it. If you have any sources from him in addition to the 1984 article, you will come across that key point fairly early in most chapters/articles on it. But, I encourage you not to take my word for it or cite this video or rely on this comment if you are writing a paper. If this is for an assignment, it's best that you find written version of that idea in one of his sources and cite it accurately.

[@willemf1988]

​@@orgcomm Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it. I have found the phrase you are referring to. There are two phrases that resemble your description and I look forward to using one of them in my paper: “people in organizations use ambiguity strategically to accomplish their goals” (Eisenberg, 1984, p. 228), or “individuals use ambiguity purposefully to accomplish their goals”, p. 230). If you don't mind, I have one follow-up question. I think people sometimes also use ambiguity to accomplish their goals without being aware this is what they are doing. If you have any literature recommendations that discuss this idea, I would be grateful. In any case, thank you very much for your kind and instructive help.

[@orgcomm]

Hi, Willem. Yes, glad you found it. As far as your question about not necessarily being aware of communicating in strategically ambiguous ways, you're likely correct. I don't know of any sources that say that specifically. It's a taken-for-granted assumption in most social scientific fields that we are not always aware of the extent to which our inner world drives our outward behavior. I don't see why that would be any different when it came to how clearly or ambiguously we communicated. Sometimes, we'll inevitably do it without consciously calculating the choice.

[@willemf1988]

​@@orgcomm Thank you very much. I completely agree. My reason for raising the question is that Eisenberg sometimes uses words that suggest (though do not imply) awareness (e.g., "purposefully"), and at least in the 1984 article, he does not make explicit that people might use strategic ambiguity without being aware of it. In any case, great to hear your thoughts on my question. More generally, I'm highly appreciative of the excellent video and your kind responses. Wishing you all the best, Willem

[@hermanvandeputte6698]

Well done! Thanks.

[@orgcomm]

Thanks for watching!

[@king0vdarkness]

Please can you do a video on Elton Mayo's Human Relations Theory?

[@orgcomm]

Hi, MuscleSheriff. I'll put it on the list. That would be a good one. Thank you for the suggestion.

[@king0vdarkness]

Organizational Communication Channel thanks man :) really like your videos! Watched the Taylorism one for my exam on Thursday

[@orgcomm]

Thank you. I appreciate it. Glad the Taylor video helped.

[@MiaAmorr1]

Ambiguity’s definition is inexactness which means deviation from the truth. Therefore, Strategic ambiguity is premeditated deviation from the truth which equals deception.

[@orgcomm]

Thank you for your comment, MiaLisa. I have a few responses that I hope will clarify the statement. 1. At about 4:50 in the video, I explain the unethical uses of ambiguity. These unethical uses have been talked about for decades. There's no doubt that ambiguity has been used by many people to hide the truth. Politicians are the worst offenders, in my view. Still, as the rest of the video shows, there are many practical uses for speaking in more general terms as long as what you say is still honest. 2. I saw your other comment about there being no gray area to the truth. I agree with that. Yes is yes and no is no. There is, however, plenty of gray area in what most words mean. The word "tree" for example is general/ambiguous/inexact word that could include all types of trees (e.g., "I love trees."). The term "Maple Tree" is more specific ("I love Maple Trees."). Are either of these statements about trees deceptive? No. As long as they are both honest, then neither one is deceptive. Most words have multiple definitions and shades of meaning. The same is true for statements. For example, Nike's slogan, Just Do It, means lots of things to lots of people because we all have our own specific goals and dreams in mind (whether those are sports related or not). When we read "Just Do It" most of us can relate to it. It is, to use your word inexact. Does the statement, Just Do It, therefore, deviate from the truth? Is it deceptive? I don't see how a person could look at that slogan and claim that it is a lie. 3. As you can see from the examples in #2, the only way to test the truth of a statement is to look at the specific statement itself. General statements (ambiguity) are no less true or false than specific statements. You have to evaluate each statement on its own merits. The scale of general-to-specific does not determine how true a statement is. The only way to determine the honest a statement is to measure it against what you already know to be true, to verify it another way. If somebody says "I'm over 6 feet tall," the only way to find out if that's true would be to measure the person. The same is true if they say, "I'm 6' 1 and a 1/2." The way to determine the truth of the statement is still to measure them somehow. The ambiguity of the first statement does not make it more or less true than the second more specific statement. Now, having said all of that, do unethical people sometimes speak ambiguously to hide the truth or to outright lie? Yes, of course. Liars love to play with words to deceive others. But that's the fault of the liar, not the words. Words, like anything else (e.g., money, connections, talents, etc), can be used for good or for evil. As mentioned in the video, strategic ambiguity is unethical if it "covers wrongdoing, hides important facts, or limits listeners' ability to make an informed choice."

[@kavinanil7406]

Is there a strategic ambiguity by the FMCG industry, electronic industry players in addressing the implications of waste generation in countries around the world....???

[@orgcomm]

Not sure. I've never studied that.

[@TheMjuane]

Ambiguity makes me feel insulted. And people who like ambiguity, tends to be unorganized

[@inuwooddog3027]

Let's call it what is it. It's Strategic Dishonesty.

[@orgcomm]

We covered the ethical and unethical uses of it near the end of the video. As mentioned, it it conceals the truth, it's unethical. But there are plenty of 100% ethical uses of strategic ambiguity. Any time we use more general language as a way to include a broader scope of listeners, that's perfectly ethical.

[@teddyroxbury5928]

Its a control tool. Pretty sad humans are led and controlled by a person who gets to decide how/when to ride the line of honesty even though they are human as well. A power, if mastered, that can control crowds. Imagine a person wanting to control crowds. What kind of person does it take to desire to be a crowd controller? Is it possible that same ego will struggle ethically with maintaining balance given the ego required to control how people receive communication? Stick ethics last lol.

[@KMR1776]

I don't buy that kind of manipulation

[@orgcomm]

Well, it's not supposed to be used for manipulation (though some people do). The last part of the video looks at the ethical and unethical uses of ambiguity.