Between strategic clarity and strategic ambiguity – oscillating strategic communication

Abstract

PurposeAmbiguity has become a central concept in strategic communication research in recent years. This paper addresses three central deficits in the research to date. First, clarity-focused approaches and ambiguity-focused approaches are in opposition to each other, resulting in an exaggeration of the advantages and opportunities of the respective favored perspective and affording the opposing position little justification at best. Second, research on strategic ambiguity is by and large limited to the organizational perspective and has little interest in societal change. Third, there has been barely any research into concrete practices of strategic ambiguity and these practices have never been systematized.Design/methodology/approachThe research questions will be answered on the basis of the “Theory of Social Systems” (TSS) by Niklas Luhmann, which can be attributed to the “Communication Constitutes Organization” (CCO) perspective. This perspective seems appropriate because the important concepts of communication and decision making play a central role in the TSS.FindingsStrategic communication oscillates between clarity and ambiguity in order to defuse the dilemma and paradox. The re-entry of the distinction is a second-order observation and, thus, reveals the blind spots of clarity- and ambiguity-focused approaches. On this basis, a systematic approach is developed that encompasses various different dimensions of strategic clarity and ambiguity.Practical implicationsThe paper focuses on the oscillation between strategic ambiguity and strategic clarity, making clear that the aim is not simply to substitute a new dominance of ambiguity for the clarity that has dominated textbooks thus far. Instead, it is a matter of reflective management of the distinction between strategic ambiguity and strategic clarity. The systematization of the practices of strategic ambiguity and strategic clarity can ultimately be used as a toolbox for the concrete application of strategic ambiguity and strategic clarity.Originality/valueOvercoming the dualism of clarity-focused and ambiguity-focused approaches makes it possible, first, to explore the situational use of strategic clarity and strategic ambiguity. Second, the societal theoretical perspective shows the way in which organizations respond with strategic ambiguity to the increase in social contradictions without, however, being able to abandon strategic clarity. Third, using the systematic approach to the dimensions presented here, these practices can be described and examined in context.

Interactive Role of Strategic Clarity in the Relationship Between Organizational Conflict Management and Strategic Decision Quality

“…Consequently, second-order conflicts often remain concealed despite their prevalence, leading to underlying hostility. The existence of second-order conflict might hinder efforts to address first-order disputes and could escalate conflicts between individuals from different identity groups (Choi et al, 2019;Contu, 2019;Hoffjann, 2022). Recognizing this distinction is pivotal for comprehending the complexities within diversity conflicts.…”

“…It also comes from being transparent about the values and attitudes in the organization and what the outcome should be, i.e. the ability to persist and know what to do in any situation (Hoffjann, 2022). Covin et al (2020) define how the organization's values, mission, and goals are straightforward to manage its projects.…”

Rentabilidad a costa de la salud. Comunicación corporativa irresponsable en la industria de suplementos

“…On the other hand, Clarity refers to the level of comprehensibility of the information provided (Hoffjann, 2021). This is vital in a sector where corporate and advertising messages are known for being difficult to understand by the public, and where enterprises are often accused of "disguising unsound business practices" (Koinig , Diehl & Mueller, 2017, p. 480).…”

Introduction: the emergent field of strategic communication

“…This is so because there are a multitude of contextual and human factors, such as power, relationships, values, individual interpretations, conflict, histories, cultural norm systems, and so on, that create tensions and difficulties. In practice, communicators and other actors need always to bear in mind that strategic explicitness and strategic ambiguity coexist, and strive for a reflexive management (Hoffjann, 2021). In order to better understand the complex reality, we need to have a more critical and reflective perspective and be involved more often in constructive conversations with practitioners (cf.…”