4.1.1 Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Bounded Rationality

The treatment of ambiguity by James March originates from his close collaboration with Herbert Simon and their common interest in how individuals in organizations make decisions collectively. Already in their co-authored 1958 book titled Organizations, March and Simon link concepts of ambiguity and uncertainty with that of limited or bounded rationality (Reference SimonSimon, 1947) in processes of decision-making. In contrast to the pure rationality theorized by neoclassical economics, the concept of bounded rationality implies that organizations can proceed rationally but not necessarily intelligently:

More specifically, bounded rationality means that certain elements and steps in decision-making are not optimal, as portrayed by normative decision-making theories. In particular, Reference March and SimonMarch and Simon (1958) emphasize that “people [in organizations] are often misinformed, or lack information, or are unable to predict or even compute the consequences of their actions. Their goals may sometimes be well-specified and stable, but often are unclear, inconsistent, and changing” (Reference March and Simon1958: 8). Hence, the two authors characterize uncertainty and ambiguity as pervasive in organizations.

Reference MarchMarch (1978) subsequently spells out the two steps in decision-making frequently affected by uncertainty and ambiguity respectively. In doing so, he makes a distinction between the two terms. The first step is that of anticipating the future consequences of current actions; it is affected by people’s limited capacity to understand cause–effect relationships and accurately predict the consequences of alternative actions. According to March, “theories of choice under uncertainty emphasize the complications of guessing future consequences” (Reference March1978: 589). In this view, organizations cannot be certain about whether actions will help them solve a problem or reach a goal. The second step in decision-making linked to ambiguity, which March calls “confusing,” involves anticipation of future preferences. Contrary to normative theories of decision-making, March proposes that preferences – alternatively labeled as tastes, valued outcomes, or goals – are vague, problematic, inconsistent, and unstable (Reference Cohen and MarchCohen & March, 1974; Reference March and OlsenMarch & Olsen, 1976) and hence in making decisions individuals and organizations experience a sense of ambiguity about their true priority in taking the actions in question. In subsequent work, March often refers to goal ambiguity as a condition permeating most organizational decision-making processes and making organizations into organized anarchies (Reference Cohen and MarchCohen & March, 1974).

According to March, ambiguity of goals is experienced by each individual. In other words, individual preferences are often “fuzzy and inconsistent” and “change over time” (Reference MarchMarch, 1978: 589). At the same time, ambiguity of goals is also an organizational and collective experience based on the intrinsic pluralism of organizations, that is, the presence of multiple actors and conflicting objectives that do nothing but amplify the ambiguity associated with individual goals. The conduciveness of the organizational context in feeding ambiguity is also manifest in the so-called garbage can model of decision-making proposed by Reference Cohen, March and OlsenCohen, March, and Olsen (1972). In this model, not only do participants enter and exit the decision venue fluidly, but the extent of the attention they focus on the issue at stake also varies over time. This makes the combination of goals inconsistent and even temporally misaligned with the actions and solutions proposed at any time, thereby creating a situation of ambiguity that is intrinsic to the political nature of organizations (Reference MarchMarch, 1962; Reference March and SimonMarch & Simon, 1958). Given that organizations are constituted by different coalitions of actors (Reference MarchMarch, 1962, Reference March1994) expressing different interests and goals, and given the politics of organizational roles and dynamics (Reference Cohen, March and OlsenCohen, March, & Olsen, 1972), it is not surprising that goals within a single organization may not only be multiple but also be conflicting and mutually inconsistent, thereby engendering a sense of “confusion” in those who make organizational decisions.

In his book A Primer on Decision Making, March appears to further broaden the conceptualization of ambiguity beyond the sole idea of ambiguous goals:

Here March points to the fact that ambiguity, independently of its locus (e.g., goals, identity, or outcomes), is bound to be pervasive in most decision arenas within organizations, essentially any time meaning is “obscure” and the act of decision-making comes closer to an interpretative exercise (Reference Beckman and BeckmanBeckman, 2021) than a perfect calculus, or, as March explains, a “calculus that allows the simultaneous existence of opposites and causal inconsistencies” (Reference March1994: 179). Hence ambiguity can derive from interpretation of the external reality and so-called events, from holding contradictory beliefs about a phenomenon that can be both true and false, from attempts to define one’s own and others’ identity, to specify preferences and desires, or to build from experiences (Reference MarchMarch, 2010).

4.1.2 Ambiguity as Both Natural and Sought-After

For the most part, ambiguity in March’s view is naturally linked with how human beings reason and with their bounded rationality, to the point that the ambiguity of goals, the starting point in his conceptualization of ambiguity, should not be seen as an error or a sign of inadequacy in organizational decision-making, but rather as the logical and natural background in which decision-making occurs within organizations (Reference MarchMarch, 1978; Reference March and OlsenMarch & Olsen, 1976). As March puts it this way:

Despite a conceptualization of ambiguity rooted in the cognitive capabilities of individuals and groups, March does not neglect to point out that this is not the only explanation of why people have ambiguous goals. Indeed, he suggests that ambiguity is not only something of which individuals are fundamentally aware but also something chosen and sought-after. He writes: “Human beings […] know that no matter how much they may be pressured both by their own prejudices for integration and by the demands of others, they will be left with contradictory and intermittent desires partially ordered but imperfectly reconciled. As a result, they engage in activities designed to manage preferences or game preferences” (Reference MarchMarch, 1978: 598).

Hence individuals embrace ambiguity by constructing preferences, treating them strategically, and confounding, avoiding, or suppressing them. This may help organizational members achieve some results more easily. For instance, March repeatedly stresses in his work that ambiguity of goals may facilitate coalition-building within organizations (Reference MarchMarch, 1994). In this sense, March anticipates subsequent work on the strategic role of ambiguity, where it is exploited knowingly to “muddle through” the complexity of organizational processes.

With respect to more recent perspectives on strategic ambiguity, March is less focused on the role played by language and discourse in actually allowing individuals and organizations to embrace ambiguity (Reference Levinthal and RerupLevinthal & Rerup, 2021). He states that decision-making is indeed about talk and action (Reference MarchMarch, 1994) and that “understanding decision making involves understanding the ways in which language carries, elaborates, and creates meaning” (Reference March1994: 211–212). He notes that language may help clarify meaning but also create new ones, make metaphorical leaps, and thereby create ambiguity and equivocality. Yet, his focus is far from exploring the details of how language or talk may create such ambiguity, something that will instead be developed later by the scholarship on strategic ambiguity as discursively constructed (Section 5).

4.2.1 Contextual Ambiguity

Contextual ambiguity can be seen as one of the most basic and natural forms of ambiguity; it represents a lack of understanding about the organization’s environment and its implications for decisions and actions. Contextual ambiguity generally refers to situations where actors have to make decisions based on inadequate information and where circumstances are changing and novel (Reference ZuzulZuzul, 2019). According to Reference Ruefli and SarrazinRuefli and Sarrazin (1981), ambiguous circumstances involve uneven qualities and quantities of information, vaguely perceived strategic goals, and a diffuse decision-making process where decisions are made both inside and outside the firm. Reference Stone and BrushStone and Brush (1996) define ambiguous contexts as situations where multiple constituencies have influence and where firms lack direct control over resource flows. In turn, Reference Noval and HernandezNoval and Hernandez (2019) view contextual ambiguity as weak contextual cues represented by ambiguous claims to a resource.

Work on contextual ambiguity appears to focus more on the effects of ambiguity on groups, organizations, and decision-making processes and less on describing the ambiguity and contexts themselves. The effects of ambiguous contexts are generally negative and pose challenges. Ambiguous contexts can make people turn away from formal network ties and move toward informal and semiformal networks (Reference SrivastavaSrivastava, 2015); they can make people too careful and cautious in making decisions (Reference Gavetti and WarglienGavetti & Warglien, 2015; Reference Hsieh, Ma and NovoselovHsieh, Ma, & Novoselov, 2018) and even lead them to take random decisions that they or their peers might not otherwise take if more clarity was available (Reference WalderWalder, 2006). However, Reference Rindova, Ferrier and WiltbankRindova, Ferrier, and Wiltbank (2010) and Reference DonnellyDonnelly (2011) have stressed how ambiguous contexts can give organizations and firms a competitive edge and force them to innovate, even though ambiguity can be stressful for employees. Similarly, Reference Lingo and O’MahonyLingo and O’Mahony (2010) have pointed to the positive opportunities in terms of invention and improvisation offered by ambiguous situations. Scholars highlight the role of individuals in making sense of ambiguous contexts (Reference Coopey, Keegan and EmlerCoopey, Keegan, & Emler, 1998; Reference MeszarosMeszaros, 1999) and especially the important role of leaders – both current and emergent – in regulating and modeling emotional reactions to contextual ambiguity (Reference Bridwell-MitchellBridwell-Mitchell, 2016; Reference PescosolidoPescosolido, 2002; Reference Wolbers, Boersma and GroenewegenWolbers, Boersma, & Groenewegen, 2018).

A specific stream of literature has focused on selected organizational environments as sites of structural ambiguity. This is the case of knowledge intensive firms, defined by Alvesson as ambiguity-intensive, because ambiguities characterize “their claimed core product (knowledge), what they are doing (working with knowledge) and the results of their work” (Reference Alvesson1993: 1006–1007). To manage such ambiguities, organizational members rely on the power of image and talk (Reference AlvessonAlvesson, 2001; Reference Alvesson and SveningssonAlvesson & Sveningsson, 2003). At the same time the strong organizational culture characterizing knowledge-intensive firms, based on an acceptance of ambiguity, can promote the development of a loyal and effective workforce (Reference Robertson and SwanRobertson & Swan, 2003).

4.2.2 Information Ambiguity

Information ambiguity can be seen, if interpreted in a broad manner, as a basic form of uncertainty. However, it is useful not to regard all lack of information or knowledge as information ambiguity, but rather to focus on the multiple interpretations or meanings of such information or knowledge. Information ambiguity, also discussed as information equivocality, has been defined by Reference Daft and MacintoshDaft and Macintosh (1981: 211) as the “multiplicity of meaning conveyed by information about organizational activities” and as information that allows for “different and conflicting interpretations about the work context.” Reference Pich, Loch and MeyerPich, Loch, and Meyer (2002) define general information inadequacy as caused by information uncertainty (not enough is known), ambiguity (the causal links of information are unclear), and complexity.

Equivocal information is generally a major problem in organizations and firms. If information lends itself to conflicting interpretations made by several people, the consequences can be harmful. Reference Daft and LengelDaft and Lengel (1986) elaborate why and how organizations process information and look at structural processes that aim to clarify ambiguity constantly, like regular team meetings, formal reports, surveys and studies, and special departments. Reference SchwenkSchwenk (1988) suggests that devil’s advocacy helps decision-makers confront assumptions based on ambiguous information and Reference Moussavi and EvansMoussavi and Evans (1993) agree with previous scholars that to avoid ambiguity shared schemata facilitate shared understandings/interpretation of information in an organization, but also argue that more effort must be put into achieving converged interpretations (or coherent information among individuals in an organization).

4.2.3 Causal Ambiguity

Causal ambiguity deals with the incapacity to fully understand the link between causes and effects in the functioning of an organization and the achievements of results. It can be defined as a lack of clarity in how the “actions and results, inputs and outcomes, or competencies and advantages are linked” (Reference Konlechner and AmbrosiniKonlechner & Ambrosini, 2019: 2353). Thus, it can be seen as a core element in decision-making, usually as a key problem or challenge hampering effective decisions or action.

In the organizational context, causal ambiguity has played a key role in studies of competitive advantage and performance. This is especially the case with the resource-based view (RBV). One of the early arguments was made by Reference Lippman and RumeltLippman and Rumelt (1982), who developed the concept of causal ambiguity to explain how firms generate profits in perfect competition. In their view, causal ambiguity explains superior performance as it protects specific firms from imitation. Thus, in the RBV context causal ambiguity has been seen as a key part of competitive advantage; for example, Reference BarneyBarney (1991) has explained how causal ambiguity is a source of competitive advantage if the managers involved do not fully understand the links between their resources and performance.

Two types of causal ambiguity have since been identified: linkage ambiguity and characteristic ambiguity (Reference King and ZeithamlKing & Zeithaml, 2001). Linkage ambiguity is created by decision-makers and regards the link between competency and competitive advantage. Characteristic ambiguity is a lack of clarity regarding the resources and competencies themselves; for example, tacit knowledge about an organization’s resources or cultural values that are not explicitly known. Reference Ambrosini and BowmanAmbrosini and Bowman (2010) supplement this categorization by arguing that linkage ambiguity is really about the “perceived ambiguity” between resources and performance; this ambiguity can be caused by characteristic ambiguity (which results when managers do not understand how complex resources work) or by faults in management.

A recent review (Reference Konlechner and AmbrosiniKonlechner & Ambrosini, 2019) lists three major ways causal ambiguity is discussed in research: (1) as an interfirm barrier to imitation, (2) as an intrafirm barrier to factor mobility, and (3) as a trigger for intrafirm learning. While causal ambiguity has been first discussed as an isolating factor that prevents imitation, it has since been related more to knowledge transfer and organizational learning. Thus, there is ongoing debate about whether causal ambiguity is beneficial to a company or organization by making its processes inimitable (because not even management understands its success) or whether it makes effective handling of resources or knowledge transfer impossible (Reference McEvily, Das and McCabeMcEvily, Das, & McCabe, 2000; Reference Reed and DeFillippiReed & DeFillippi, 1990; Reference Szulanski, Cappetta and JensenSzulanski, Cappetta, & Jensen, 2004). Causal ambiguity can also contribute to the survival of harmful and or unethical practices in firms and organizations (Reference VermeulenVermeulen, 2018).

4.2.4 Goal Ambiguity

Goal ambiguity refers to the inability of an organization to fully define its goals, objectives, or targets. It implies unclarity in the objectives (of the organization) and the “future state of the organization” or its projects (Reference Chun and RaineyChun & Rainey, 2005: 531). Goal ambiguity can be seen in the early models of organizational decision-making, where it is defined as multiple, changing, and alternative goals (Reference Cohen, March and OlsenCohen, March, & Olsen, 1972; Reference Cyert and MarchCyert & March, 1963; Reference March and SimonMarch & Simon, 1958). However, there is a more recent stream of research that focuses on goal ambiguity and details its various dimensions and aspects. For instance, Reference Chun and RaineyChun and Rainey (2005) identify four types of goal ambiguity: mission comprehension ambiguity (the understandability of the mission statement), directive goal ambiguity (the directives and actions that should be taken to reach goals), evaluative goal ambiguity (evaluation of progress toward a goal – e.g. performance indicators), and priority goal ambiguity (prioritizing multiple goals to achieve larger goals or prioritizing goals hierarchically). By contrast, Reference JungJung (2014a, Reference Jung2014b, Reference Jung2014c) offers another typology: target ambiguity, timeline ambiguity, and evaluation ambiguity.

There is a general understanding that public sector organizations have much higher goal ambiguity than their counterparts in the private sector (e.g., Reference SchrammSchramm, 1975; Reference TurcotteTurcotte, 1974). Studies have since added nuance to this understanding. Reference Rainey and BozemanRainey and Bozeman (2000: 452) show that public managers do not acknowledge problems caused by goal ambiguity and Reference Stazyk and GoerdelStazyk and Goerdel (2011) argue that high levels of hierarchical authority can offset goal ambiguity in public organizations. Factors like high political salience/visibility can translate to higher levels of goal ambiguity in public organizations (Reference Lee, Rainey and ChunLee, Rainey, & Chun, 2009), while budgets that prioritize some projects over others can provide workers with better goal clarity and improve their motivation (Reference ShepsleShon et al., 2020). Additionally, if workers receive generous feedback (Reference Gonzalez-Mulé, Courtright, DeGeest, Seong and HongGonzalez-Mulé et al., 2016) and perceive their job as important (Reference JungJung, 2014a), they are more likely to experience goal clarity.

4.2.5 Category Ambiguity

Categories are cognitive representations or classifications that simplify the information burden associated with making sense of social phenomena (Reference Durand, Boulongne, Greenwood, Oliver, Lawrence and MeyerDurand & Boulongne, 2017). Categorization has been traditionally seen as a means to alleviate ambiguity around social phenomena by increasing familiarity and resemblance. Category research has incorporated the study of ambiguity from two perspectives: ambiguity in categorization processes (Reference PontikesPontikes, 2012), where organizations ambiguously signal their membership in a market category or display multiple memberships (Reference ZuckermanZuckerman, 1999); and the emergence of ambiguous categories themselves, defined as categories for which multiple divergent frames exist (Reference Chliova, Mair and VernisChliova, Mair, & Vernis, 2020: 1021).

Most work in this area focuses on market categories and zooms in on the ambiguity of the positioning of an organization/firm in a market category. Market labels and categories, for example “healthcare” or “construction,” are shared reference points that influence how stakeholders conceive of and act toward an organization (Reference Granqvist, Grodal and WoolleyGranqvist, Grodal, & Woolley, 2013). While some research (Reference Granqvist, Grodal and WoolleyGranqvist, Grodal, & Woolley, 2013; Reference ZuckermanZuckerman, 1999, Reference Zuckerman2000) has shown that firms face difficulty if they are associated with several market categories simultaneously, most authors appear to agree that category ambiguity can be advantageous (Reference Chliova, Mair and VernisChliova, Mair, & Vernis, 2020; Reference FleischerFleischer, 2009; Reference PontikesPontikes, 2012). However, this ambiguity has to be managed and engineered. For example, a hedging strategy – at times associating the organization with one category and at other times rejecting it and relating to another, thereby identifying with more than one market – can be used to widen the organization/firm’s scope (Reference Granqvist, Grodal and WoolleyGranqvist, Grodal, & Woolley, 2013). More specifically, Reference Granqvist, Grodal and WoolleyGranqvist, Grodal, and Woolley (2013) stress the importance and difficulty of market labeling in nascent markets where existing labels do not exist. Reference PontikesPontikes (2012) argues that ambiguous market labels are unappealing and confusing for consumers who are market-takers, but can appeal to venture capitalists who are market-makers. Reference Boulongne and DurandBoulongne and Durand (2021) explore how audiences themselves partake in product categorization and show that a different approach by an audience (e.g., goal-based categorization) leads to a more favorable view of ambiguous products. Reference Wang and JensenWang and Jensen (2019) in turn discuss identity ambiguity and elaborate on the challenges faced by firms in seeking to present coherent market identities. Thus, managing category ambiguity can also involve aspects of strategic ambiguity, which we will turn to next.

5.1.1 Ambiguous Language versus Ambiguous Communication

In his 1984 seminal paper, Eisenberg is adamant that strategic ambiguity is not “an attribute of messages,” but rather something that develops through the act of communicating and is therefore “a relational variable which arises through a combination of source, message, and receiver factors” (Reference EisenbergEisenberg, 1984: 229; emphasis in the original). In doing so, Eisenberg strives to shift the attention of scholars away from the analysis of ambiguous language that lacks specific detail or is abstract, arguing that the “particular message strategy chosen” by the source of the message is not “equivalent to whether an individual has been relatively clear or ambiguous” (Reference Eisenberg1984: 231). In this sense, Eisenberg suggests that detailed and specific language can generate ambiguity as much as imprecise and figurative language. He in fact urges scholars to explore the ambiguity of meaning created in the relationship between the actors (source and receiver) exchanging a message. In his words, the degree of strategic ambiguity in organizational communication depends in the end on “the degree to which a source has narrowed the possible interpretations of a message and succeeded in achieving a correspondence between his or her intentions and the interpretation of the receiver” (Reference EisenbergEisenberg, 1984: 231).

Eisenberg envisages many instances in organizational life in which the source of a message (often a manager) would intentionally avoid achieving correspondence between intent and the interpretation of receivers, mainly employees. According to this perspective, ambiguity is therefore not only something inherent in organizational life and phenomena as the intrinsic view suggests (Reference March and OlsenMarch & Olsen, 1976), but engendered in the plurality of interpretations allowed by organizational talk and communication. While Eisenberg mainly stresses the intentionality of organizational actors in creating ambiguity, he never excludes the possibility that ambiguity can be created inadvertently and merely used strategically, that is, to accomplish goals. Reference GirouxGiroux (2006) subsequently shows that while ambiguity around quality management is discursively constructed at the field level with little collective intention, the increasing multiplicity of meanings associated with it has facilitated widespread diffusion of this management practice across the world.

5.1.2 Theoretical Origins and Cross-Fertilizations

Eisenberg roots his conceptualization of ambiguity in organizational symbolism (Reference Dandridge, Mitroff and JoyceDandridge, Mitroff, & Joyce, 1980; Reference PfefferPfeffer, 1981). This theoretical take proposes to conceive of organizations as imbued with symbols, that is, objects, actions, and language conveying abstract meanings, making the “political, dramaturgical, and language skills” of managers more important than their analytical and cognitive capacities (Reference EisenbergEisenberg, 1984; Reference PfefferPfeffer, 1981). Based on this perspective, strategic ambiguity could be seen as one of the instruments at the disposal of managers to allow multiple interpretations of the same symbol by employees in an organization (Reference EisenbergEisenberg, 1984; Reference Eisenberg and RileyEisenberg & Riley, 1988).

Despite organizational symbolism being the main theoretical foundation of Eisenberg’s seminal papers, references to the work of Karl Weick are also present in his papers. In a later essay (Reference EisenbergEisenberg, 2007), he indeed acknowledges how Weick, by emphasizing the contingency of organizational life and the relevance of communication and talk in organizations (Reference WeickWeick, 1984), has been aligned with the interpretive turn in the field of communication studies (Reference Putnam and PacanowskyPutnam & Pacanowsky, 1983). In addition, Weick’s pioneering work on the role of equivocality – as in the plurality of interpretations – for (effective) organizing appears to conform to a large extent to Eisenberg’s conceptualization of strategic ambiguity and diverge, for instance, from the predominant views on the need for shared meanings and consensus in effective organizing.

Finally, in conceptualizing strategic ambiguity, Eisenberg does not neglect to draw connections with the fields of political science (Reference EdelmanEdelman, 1977) and international relations from which he takes examples of the use of ambiguity mainly in the communication of goals. These references confirm the political nature that Eisenberg attributes to the creation and use of ambiguity in communication in and around organizations. Indeed, reference to studies in political science are also present in subsequent studies (e.g., Reference Gioia, Nag and CorleyGioia, Nag, & Corley, 2012; Reference Sillince, Jarzabkowski and ShawSillince, Jarzabkowski, & Shaw, 2012). These papers explicitly draw parallels between how political candidates (Reference GlazerGlazer, 1990; Reference PagePage, 1976; Reference ShepsleShepsle, 1972) or political actors (Reference Padgett and AnsellPadgett & Ansell, 1993; Reference Ring and PerryRing & Perry, 1985) maintain ambiguity around their goals and actions in order to win elections or build alliances and how managers ambiguously communicate their vision of organizational change or of a new strategy to employees.

5.1.3 Purposes of Strategic Ambiguity

Strategic ambiguity can serve several purposes in organizations. Eisenberg and colleagues (Reference EisenbergEisenberg, 1984; Reference Eisenberg, Goodall and TretheweyEisenberg, Goodall, & Trethewey, 2013) distinguish three main sets of purposes that can be achieved by creating or using ambiguity: (a) promoting “unified diversity” within organizations and with external and diverse stakeholders or audiences; (b) facilitating organizational change, and (c) preserving “privileged positions.”

As to the first purpose, Eisenberg points that ambiguous language can facilitate multiple interpretations of the same message and hence flexibility, and thanks to a “level of abstraction at which agreement can occur” (Reference EisenbergEisenberg, 1984: 233, emphasis in the original) at the same time provide some level of healthy consensus across diverse actors. In this sense, strategic ambiguity can reduce conflict and allow actors with divergent views to speak “with one voice.” In contrast, the second purpose focuses on the capacity of strategic ambiguity – mainly around goals – to promote organizational change by allowing organizational members to preserve a sense of continuity while simultaneously adapting to the shifting nature of goals during the change process. Eisenberg also points to the fact that ambiguity promotes development of interpersonal relationships. When an individual conveys ambiguous goals in a message to either an internal or an external audience, the recipients tend to interpret the goals in their own terms. They perceive affinity with the sender and are inclined to establish a collaborative relationship.

Finally, Eisenberg points to the possibility of using strategic ambiguity to avoid compromising with explicit messages positions of consolidated credibility, in order to preserve temporal advantages over competitors or maintain control over interorganizational collaboration by preserving the possibility to withdraw from a partnership without “losing face” (Reference EisenbergEisenberg, 1984; Reference Eisenberg, Goodall and TretheweyEisenberg, Goodall, & Trethewey, 2013). Eisenberg suggests that ambiguous communication can achieve all this because it can be more easily rejected by organizations than clearer messages. Asserting something ambiguously and then leaving the entire burden of interpretation to the receiver allow organizations to dismiss all those interpretations that may threaten it, and hence exercise a form of control or power over the receiver.

Reference Eisenberg and WittenEisenberg and Witten (1987) dedicate a large part of their seminal paper to explain that ambiguous communication and organizational secrecy, that is, the extent to which organizations conceal information about their activities and strategies from internal or external audiences, are closely linked. They suggest that overly disclosive communication may be detrimental to organizations in many instances such as crises or collective bargaining negotiations, but that, most importantly, it does not eliminate power asymmetries between organizations or between managers and subordinates within organizations.

5.2.1 Conceptual Ambiguity

The first stream of work examines how language generates linguistic ambiguity (Reference Nicolai and DautwizNicolai & Dautwiz, 2010), equivocal language (Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al., 2011), or linguistic equivocality (Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah & Langley, 2014). In such conceptual ambiguity, ambiguity is generated by the use of single words or keywords and refers to how certain specific words in a text are used in relation to a variety of different descriptors (Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah & Langley, 2014; Reference Jalonen, Schildt and VaaraJalonen, Schildt, & Vaara, 2018). In this perspective, keywords are not only highly salient words within a discourse that are closely associated with issues central to that discourse, but also have multiple meanings. Ambiguity is thus generated by the semantic openness of the concepts. For example, Reference Leitch and DavenportLeitch and Davenport (2007) analyze how the word “sustainability” was used within a set of documents intended by the New Zealand Government to guide development of biotechnology and the role that usage of this word played in facilitating coherent presentation of a change message. In a complimentary vein, Meyer and Höllerer defined CSR as an ambiguous term with a “complexity-neutralizing capacity” (Reference Meyer and Höllerer2016: 382). Similarly, Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley’s (2014) study of strategy planning in a cultural organization illuminates the frequent and equivocal use of the word “relevance” appearing in association with a variety of other objects and expressions. The word is used in a vague manner to refer to the organization as a whole, but also more specifically to the organization’s production program.

Analyses of the single words and keywords also characterize the studies on management fashions, that is, abstract, often vague and fuzzily defined, sometimes also contradictory concepts. Reference GirouxGiroux’s (2006) study on total quality management (TQM) is based on analysis of texts containing selected terms such as “total quality management,” “total quality,” or “quality circles.” Similar arguments apply to the concepts of business process reengineering (Reference Benders and Van VeenBenders & Van Veen, 2001) or core competence framework (Reference Nicolai and DautwizNicolai & Dautwiz, 2010).

A distinguishing feature of conceptual ambiguity is its intertextual component. This means that ambiguity is generated not by an individual word in a single instance, but rather by its use across texts and time. Many of these studies therefore uncover patterns of semantic use of words by analyzing a series of texts, for example, in the form of documents, print press, or interview transcripts. When studying texts issued by the same actor(s) over time, use of the same equivocal word, for example, “sustainability” or “relevance,” allows different texts to signal an internal and intertextual coherence and facilitates an inclusive voice. This was shown by Reference Leitch and DavenportLeitch and Davenport (2007) in their analysis of the intertextual chain that linked five major policy documents released by the New Zealand Government between 2001 and 2003 that were intended to drive significant social change. Alternatively, authors of texts can generate ambiguity by adding or deleting words across texts. For example, Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al. (2011) show how initial versions of a merger principle about the configuration of services on each of the sites provided more detail than the final version. Details were deliberately removed to allow people to sign in comfort.

When studying texts produced by different actors, ambiguity is instead generated by “interpretive viability” (Reference Benders and Van VeenBenders & Van Veen, 2001) characterizing the individual words and constructs. The study of management fashions, in particular, shows how the conceptual ambiguity of the words and associated constructs allows different managers to “eclectically select those elements that appeal to them,” interpret them as the fashion’s core idea, or opportunistically select those suitable to their purposes. At the organizational level, different actors may interpret a concept differently. This has been shown by Reference Nicolai and DautwizNicolai and Dautwiz (2010), who trace how interpretations of the definition of core competences and the notion of what the company’s core competences actually are vary greatly. In other words, as they argue, ambiguity has two sides; it depends on both the conceptual ambiguity of the original text and the contextual ambiguity of the adopting organization (Reference Nicolai and DautwizNicolai & Dautwiz, 2010).

5.2.2 Rhetorical Ambiguity

A second set of studies focuses on rhetoric, which is a branch of discourse and language theory associated with persuasion, as a theoretical and methodological lens for understanding how multiple actors construct strategic ambiguity to influence different audiences.

In continuity with the conceptual ambiguity described above, scholars have studied how specific figures of speech generate ambiguity. The most common one is the metaphor, a figure of speech typically based on the transfer of meaning from a source domain to a target domain. As defined by Reference RichardsRichards (1936), “when we use a metaphor we have two thoughts of different things active together and supported by a single word or phrase whose meaning is a result of their interaction. We arrive at [the meaning] only through the interpretative possibilities of the whole utterance.” Metaphors are open to multiple interpretations and therefore provide interpretive room within which stakeholders may engage with an organization. Metaphors, however, are not entirely open; they instead carry with them associations that have been built up through common usage. Reference Leitch and DavenportLeitch and Davenport (2002) study how the major science-funding agency in New Zealand deployed new metaphors and the investment metaphor specifically, as a central element of its communication with external stakeholders during a change process. Similarly, Reference KelemenKelemen (2000) analyzes the concept of total quality management in four organizations. She focuses on three properties of language – labels, metaphors, and platitudes – and argues that while labels and platitudes are used to instill a sense of order, metaphors are used with the opposite purpose, that of increasing ambiguity by inviting multiple and diverse interpretations. Ambiguity is generated by both the structure of the metaphor and the way in which it generates meaning in the mind of the reader. As Ramsay noted in an examination of the supply-chain metaphor in business circles, using metaphors for strategic purposes may not be an easy process because “the linguistic images in the metaphor interact with the reader’s personal knowledge and experiences and the cognitive structures formed in this process will be different for each reader” (Reference Ramsay2004: 145).

The study of rhetoric in relation to strategic ambiguity has also been the focus of a series of studies by Jarzabkowski and colleagues (Reference Jarzabkowski, Sillince and ShawJarzabkowski, Sillince, & Shaw, 2010; Reference Sillince, Jarzabkowski and ShawSillince, Jarzabkowski, & Spee, 2012; see also Reference Spee and JarzabkowskiSpee & Jarzabkowski, 2017). In their analysis of the internationalization strategy within a business school, Reference Sillince, Jarzabkowski and ShawSillince, Jarzabkowski, and Spee (2012) show how actors use rhetoric to construct different types of ambiguity – protective, invitational, and adaptive – in order to support the interests of both academic and managerial sides. In another study (2010), they identify different rhetorical positions based on the degree of broadness or narrowness of the articulation of an ambiguous goal and on the range of stakeholders’ interests and show how each of these uses ambiguity in strategic action. More complex rhetorical arguments have also been found to generate ambiguity. Reference Sorsa and VaaraSorsa and Vaara (2020) identify the central role of consensus arguments, that is, arguments that involve a rhetorical syllogism called “enthymemes” characterized by concealment of the value premises. In their study of a Nordic city organization, the authors noted how arguments that left the underlying assumptions implicit generated the ambiguity needed for construction of common ground in strategy texts.

Within the realm of rhetorical ambiguity, the role of nonverbal language – and silence in particular – deserves special attention in strategically creating ambiguity. Departing from a traditional view of silence as a passive act, essentially a nonbehavior, a few organizational scholars have conceptualized silence as purposeful. This perspective is rooted in communication studies, which regard interactive silence as strategic and intentional (Reference Pinder and HarlosPinder & Harlos, 2001) and able to create ambiguity in interpersonal exchanges (Reference BruneauBruneau, 1973). Reference Van Dyne, Ang and BoteroVan Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) focus on ambiguity as equivocality in attributions by observers of the motives of employees based on the behavioral cues provided by their silence or voice. They suggest that silence is more ambiguous to observers than voice because it provides fewer behavioral cues. When an employee is silent, observers do not have access to speech acts, subtle speech cues, or back-channel communication cues, but only nonverbal behavior that often evokes several possible interpretations or multiple meanings and is therefore ambiguous. In a very different organizational setting, one of clandestine organizations, Reference Cappellaro, Compagni and VaaraCappellaro, Compagni, and Vaara (2021) also show how silence produces ambiguity in the eyes of observers. By studying the case of the Sicilian mafia, the authors show how silence is strategically employed by Mafiosi to generate ambiguity in the perception state representatives have of mafia power: that is, whether silence (as the absence of violence) should be interpreted as a signal of a weaker or more powerful mafia organization. In contrast to Reference Van Dyne, Ang and BoteroVan Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003), Reference Cappellaro, Compagni and VaaraCappellaro, Compagni, and Vaara (2021) show how silence and speech can be deployed dynamically in order to actively foster strategic ambiguity. Organizations may in fact abandon a strategy of silence when it begins to lose its effectiveness, engage external audiences in finer speech-based strategies, and then for renewed effectiveness revert to silence in combination with other tactics. Hence, they argue that “more than a strategy of silence we should be talking about strategies of silence, deployed by organizations with different timing and impact on external audiences” (Reference Cappellaro, Compagni and VaaraCappellaro, Compagni, & Vaara, 2021: 24).

5.2.3 Narrative and Frame Ambiguity

A final analytical perspective focuses on how higher-order, more complex structures of a discourse can be used to create ambiguity. A narrative is a tool used to influence others’ understandings and is an outcome of the collective construction of meaning (Reference SonensheinSonenshein, 2010). Strategic ambiguity can reside in both the construction of the individual narrative and in the interpretation of different narratives. An example of the former is the study of Reference Cappelen and Strandgaard PedersenCappelen and Strandgaard Pedersen (2021) on the Turkish culinary movement, which focuses on how actors deliberately create different forms of ambiguity to legitimate historical narratives of a common cultural heritage. These forms of ambiguity concern the origin, artefacts, and ownership of the culinary movement and allow actors to (re)create a common past, while granting flexibility for future action. Ambiguity at the level of the interpretation of multiple narratives is also well exemplified by the work of Reference SonensheinSonenshein (2010). In a study of the implementation of an organizational change initiative, he showed how managers were intentionally equivocal about the meaning of change, developing narratives that combined dialectically opposite categories of significant change (the progressive narrative) and insignificant change (stability narratives).

The notion of opposing narratives as generative of ambiguity is also echoed in studies of frames and cognitive representations. While intrinsic views see frames as cognitive filters to reduce contextual and information ambiguity (Reference Hubbard, Pollock, Pfarrer and RindovaHubbard et al., 2018; Reference SgourevSgourev, 2013) or to leverage on ambiguous issues or concepts (Reference Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse and FiggeHahn et al., 2014), frames can also generate ambiguity. This typically happens when framing activity includes contradictory or opposite frames (Reference Litrico and DavidLitrico & David, 2017). Reference Feront and BertelsFeront and Bertels (2021) investigates how the ambiguous frame employed by proponents of responsible investment influenced the interpretive dynamics of the field constituents and affected field-level change, differentiating between the degrees of ambiguity generated by each component of a frame – diagnostic, prognostic, or motivational.

5.3.1 Strategic Change

Strategic ambiguity can be specifically used in processes of strategic change inside an organization in contexts of potential high contestation. Two mechanisms have been identified to support this function. The first mechanism through which strategically ambiguous discourse – in the form of concepts, arguments, narratives or frames – supports change initiatives is by allowing the coexistence of divergent points of view regarding change efforts and, as a consequence, reducing opposition to change inside the organization. This is done by creating space for accommodating simultaneous multiple interpretations (Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al., 2011), that is, interpretations comprising multiple prevailing meanings and new meanings within a joint account (Reference Spee and JarzabkowskiSpee & Jarzabkowski, 2017), by temporally alternating different narratives that appeal to both defenders of the status quo and supporters of the change initiative (Reference SonensheinSonenshein, 2010), or by masking the value premises of change arguments (Reference Sorsa and VaaraSorsa & Vaara, 2020).

In conceptualizing how ambiguity relates to strategic change, specific attention has been devoted to show that ambiguity is not an exclusive resource of a single group but can instead be exploited by multiple actors during the strategic change initiative. For example, Jarzabkowski and colleagues (Reference Jarzabkowski, Sillince and ShawJarzabkowski, Sillince, & Shaw, 2010; Reference Sillince, Jarzabkowski and ShawSillince, Jarzabkowski, & Shaw, 2012) illuminate how collective action in change initiatives results from how different constituents adopt different types of rhetorical ambiguity over time to advance their interests (Reference Sillince, Jarzabkowski and ShawSillince, Jarzabkowski, & Shaw, 2012). In a complimentary vein, Reference Aggerholm, Asmuß and ThomsenAggerholm, Asmuß, and Thomsen (2012) focus on the subsequent phases – strategy authoring, translation, and interpretation – of a strategizing process and show how ambiguity arises through the presence of multiple strategic actors within and across phases. In their analysis of strategy work in a Nordic city organization, Reference Jalonen, Schildt and VaaraJalonen, Schildt, and Vaara (2018) in turn show how a degree of ambiguity around new strategic concepts is needed to mobilize people but how over time increasing ambiguity tends to hamper strategic decision-making. Moving at the interorganizational level, Reference WexlerWexler (2009) traces the process through which different loosely coupled discourse communities coalesce around an emerging coalition focused on the ambiguous concept of triple bottom line. In these streams of work, ambiguity is channeled by powerful groups but also emerges from the interaction of different constituents.

A second, deeper, mechanism through which strategic ambiguity shapes strategic change processes is by triggering a revision of the knowledge basis and forms of the organizational actors. According to this view, rather than masking divergences among organizational actors, ambiguous statements regarding the strategic change efforts and new vision generate new and divergent sensemaking (Reference WeickWeick, 1995). As illustrated by Reference Gioia, Nag and CorleyGioia, Nag, and Corley (2012), during change processes organizational members challenge and question various elements of their interpretive frames. They interpret ambiguous vision statements – that is, statements characterized by lack of specificity and/or low emphasis – by developing new meanings for them and ultimately alter their activities to make them consistent with these new meanings. Divergent sensemaking triggered by strategic ambiguity and the associated revision of knowledge may ultimately sediment and modify organizational practices and routines (Reference Gioia, Nag and CorleyGioia, Nag, & Corley, 2012).

The employment of ambiguous discourse to support strategic change initiatives has nevertheless potential downsides. On the one hand, an empirical question is “how much” ambiguity is needed for the successful backing of change initiatives. Too much or too little ambiguity may indeed be counterproductive. For example, Feront and Bertels showed how high levels of frame ambiguity hindered field-level change. High levels of frame ambiguity “allowed for a false impression of progress, inhibited material changes, and concealed differences between actors” (Reference Feront and Bertels2021: 1136). On the other hand, the sense of positive alignment obtained by coexistence of opposite points of view may be temporary in nature. While initially facilitating the change process by allowing organizational members to push forward their respective interpretations over time, the mobilizing effects of strategic ambiguity can lead to internal contradiction (Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah & Langley, 2014; Reference Denis, Dompierre, Langley and RouleauDenis et al., 2011). It has therefore been argued that strategic ambiguity is beneficial in launching change processes, while it is less effective in the subsequent phase of change implementation, when it is important to establish a more precise set of goals (Reference Gioia, Nag and CorleyGioia, Nag, & Corley, 2012). Finally, strategic ambiguity could also be (mis)used to retain control over employees within existing organizational boundaries (Reference KelemenKelemen, 2000; Reference MarkhamMarkham, 1996; Reference Sewell and BarkerSewell & Barker, 2006). Managers may deliberately allow ambiguity “in order to make space for manipulation” because by “keeping ambiguity in play it is the subordinates who carry the risk of blame for misinterpreting the messages” (Reference MunroMunro, 1995, cited in Kelemen, 2020: 492).

5.3.2 Stakeholder Relationship Management

Strategic ambiguity can also be used to manage the relationship between the organization and its external audiences. In continuity with the change dynamics described in the previous section, strategically ambiguous discourse is employed to communicate change efforts to external stakeholders. At the first level, ambiguity in such circumstances empowers stakeholders by allowing them to co-create meaning within organizational discourse (Reference Scandelius and CohenScandelius & Cohen, 2016). However, such co-creation is typically guided by the organization itself, which orchestrates the degree of discursive closure and hence of participation by external stakeholders. As argued by Reference Davenport and LeitchDavenport and Leitch (2005), ambiguity is a powerful resource held by an organization “to potentially select discursive openness as an alternative to discursive closure, depending on whether they seek creative engagement with, or compliance from, their stakeholders.” Ambiguity is thus seen as “a form of authority delegation for creative stakeholder engagement” (Reference Davenport and LeitchDavenport & Leitch, 2005:1604). In addition to enabling multiple interpretations about the direction of change to coexist, strategic ambiguity provides the organization with the time to prepare for change and put into place the internal structures necessary to support such change. As Leitch and Davenport illustrated, ambiguous language provides “the time and interpretive space for an organization to develop fully its policies and procedures internally while still clearly signaling to external stakeholders the goals of change and the outcomes that were sought” (Reference Leitch and Davenport2002: 133).

Mediators can also intervene in the relationship between the organization and its stakeholders. The media for example, as illustrated by a study of CSR press coverage in Denmark (Reference Guthey and MorsingGuthey & Morsing, 2014), can further accentuate a lack of clarity regarding specific concepts, thus amplifying the degree of discursive openness. Hence strategic ambiguity can emerge from the interaction of loosely coupled groups or coalitions across organizational boundaries mediated through the business press.

A second core function of strategic ambiguity for stakeholder management is to protect organizations from negative outside evaluations and the potential harmful effects of public scrutiny. For example, Reference Meyer and HöllererMeyer and Höllerer (2016) show how expressing commitment to the ambiguous CSR concept allowed organizations that had been committed to the preexisting shareholder value model to maintain legitimacy. This function is typically performed in crisis contexts to maintain a high engagement by stakeholders with divergent interests. Here ambiguous arguments are used as advocacy tools (Reference Sellnow and UlmerSellnow & Ulmer, 1995; Reference Ulmer and SellnowUlmer & Sellnow, 1997, Reference Ulmer and Sellnow2000) and display different apologetic reformative strategies (Reference Ware and LinkugelWare & Linkugel, 1973). Such strategies include, for example, denial – which refers to the “disavowal by the leaders of any relationship with the sources of the crises” – and bolstering, which is the opposite of denial and refers to “the leaders’ efforts to involve themselves with facts, objects or relationships which are viewed favorably by the audience” (Reference Sellnow and UlmerSellnow & Ulmer, 1995: 139). In their study on the public arguments developed by the leaders of Jack in the Box, a fast-food chain suspected of having caused an outbreak of E. coli, Reference Sellnow and UlmerSellnow and Ulmer (1995; Reference Ulmer and SellnowUlmer & Sellnow, 2000) show how leaders deployed both strategies to maintain legitimacy with stakeholders with divergent views – that is, the general public who had an interest in seeing that the organization had put in place all measures to respond to the crisis and the shareholders who were interested in claiming that the organization was not connected with the crisis.

In contexts of crises – when potential loss of legitimacy or other negative organizational repercussions are at stake – the use of strategic ambiguity gives rise to questions of its ethical implications for diverse stakeholders (Reference Paul and StrbiakPaul & Strbiak, 1997). Reference Eisenberg, Goodall and TretheweyEisenberg, Goodall, and Trethewey (2013) argue that a focus on strategic ambiguity in organizations minimizes the importance of ethics and is used to escape blame. Elaborating on the link between strategic ambiguity and ethics, scholars contend that strategic ambiguity does not raise ethical considerations when it “poses alternative views that are based on complete and unbiased data that aims to inform” (Reference Ulmer and SellnowUlmer & Sellnow, 1997: 217). On the contrary, strategic ambiguity is unethical when it serves to obscure the sensemaking abilities of stakeholders by using biased or incomplete information (Reference Ulmer and SellnowUlmer & Sellnow, 1997, Reference Ulmer and Sellnow2000). Reference Ulmer and SellnowUlmer and Sellnow (1997) show how managers of the tobacco industry deliberately engaged in strategic ambiguity to limit the deliberative ability of external stakeholders by providing them with incomplete and biased information.

The emphasis on the use of ambiguity to protect organizations from negative outside evaluations and the ethical consequence of such use introduces the third function of strategic ambiguity, which is supporting stakeholder management by specific categories of clandestine or even criminal organizations (Reference Cappellaro, Compagni and VaaraCappellaro, Compagni, & Vaara, 2021). These organizations represent an extreme case of actors relying on strategic ambiguity to escape blame and display two distinctive features that differentiate them from traditional contexts of organizational change or crises. First, while in the more conventional organizations ambiguity is deployed as temporary strategy, it is essential for the survival of clandestine and criminal organizations hiding from public scrutiny. Hence, strategic ambiguity constitutes a long-term organizational strategy. Furthermore, while the aim of ambiguity during crises or change efforts is to foster consensus, clandestine and criminal organizations use strategic ambiguity to create an antagonist relationship with the scrutinizing external stakeholders. As shown in the study on the strategic use of ambiguity by the Sicilian mafia (Reference Cappellaro, Compagni and VaaraCappellaro, Compagni, & Vaara, 2021), as an external audience makes progress in trying to dissipate ambiguity, the organization switches strategy and ultimately shifts to a different type of ambiguity, thus aiming to keep stakeholders in a persistent state of confusion regarding its activities and strategies.

6.1.1 Actorhood and Agency in Ambiguity Management

The first avenue for future research focuses on more effective exploration and theorization of actorhood and agency in ambiguity management. By “ambiguity management” we mean all the processes aimed at creating, responding, exploiting, maintaining, or transforming ambiguity. Future research could focus on which actors within organizations are involved in or take the initiative to manage ambiguity, for what purposes and through what means. Similarly, future research could concentrate on external organizational audiences such as other organizations, politicians, regulators, civil society, the public, or the media –and thereby explain not only the repertoire of responses to organizational ambiguity displayed by them but also how the ambiguity generated by these external social actors impact the reactions of organizations to that ambiguity. For instance, Reference Feront and BertelsFeront and Bertels (2021) describe how in South Africa the ambiguity included in the framing of socially responsible investment (SRI) by its proponents (mainly regulatory institutions) led not only to a variety of responses (i.e., dissociating, normalizing, and moderating) within financial organizations (asset owners, asset managers, and asset consultants), but also among financial and other organizations in this issue field (e.g., civil society organizations, SRI consultancy firms, and universities). Hence, researchers should therefore focus special attention actorhood that may develop around and be afforded by ambiguity as well as the conditions that generate it.

A good starting point in this respect would be to account for what several authors (Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah & Langley, 2014; Reference Feront and BertelsFeront & Bertels, 2021) describe, that is, polar responses toward ambiguity across organizational members and organizations: on the one hand, responses directed to face and embrace ambiguity and on the other those that reject ambiguity or distance themselves from it. The choice between these two polar responses does not appear to be randomly distributed across individuals or organizations. Hence, aspects such as subject positions, cultural, or social norms may be relevant in informing this choice. As for instance shown by Reference Cappellaro, Compagni and VaaraCappellaro, Compagni, and Vaara (2021), it was only when a certain cultural and social awareness of the problem represented by the mafia emerged that state representatives started to acknowledge the ambiguity surrounding the criminal organization and began to dissipate it through definition and categorization.

Another relevant aspect to understand in this stream of future research is when and toward which audiences organizations decide to make use of ambiguity, that is, the various choices they make in creating ambiguity about their purposes, practices, or conduct, or vice versa in dissipating it. Firms, for instance, may need to use high-level communication toward investors or market analysts who evaluate their viability (Reference ZuckermanZuckerman, 1999) or employ ambiguous labels toward clients in order to reach a much broader range of people (Reference Chliova, Mair and VernisChliova, Mair, & Vernis, 2020) – or vice versa (Reference PontikesPontikes, 2012). Hence understanding the selective way in which actorhood is exercised in ambiguity management is a fundamental step toward theorizing ambiguity as a relational construct, given that it shows what relationships organizations or organizational members choose or need to “activate” and how.

Exploring actorhood in ambiguity management would also better illuminate the motivations of actors involved and the strategic or instrumental purposes that drive organizations or individuals in so doing.

While, in fact, the literature (e.g., Reference Jarzabkowski, Sillince and ShawJarzabkowski, Sillince, & Shaw, 2010; Reference SonensheinSonenshein, 2010) has so far explored some of the purposes, such as promoting organizational change and adaptation, creating cohesion, or mobilizing different viewpoints, less attention has been paid to the use of ambiguity within and around organizations to maintain power positions, exercise control by confusing or immobilizing one’s counterparts, and exploit (or sometimes abuse) the “deniability” that ambiguity grants to discourse (Reference EisenbergEisenberg, 1984) in order to escape blame, responsibility, or stigmatization. However, instead of merely assuming motivations behind the strategic use of ambiguity, scholars may want to investigate them directly, from the vantage points of the protagonists. Why do managers send ambiguous messages to employees? Are they aware the messages are ambiguous? How intentional is a choice, and how much is it something that managers can simply not avoid given the complexities of organizational life? Answering these questions may enable distinguishing intentions from the results of such actions or provide a better understanding of whether and why actors change or correct strategies based on observing the reactions of those who perceive the ambiguity.

Once again, this would allow more thorough exploration of the relationships that organize around ambiguity, their interplay, and the feedback loops. Are those responding to ambiguity aware of their counterparts’ intentions? Does this matter for the way they respond? Some of these questions point to the need to expand and integrate our knowledge about responses to ambiguity beyond the more established cognitive explanations to encompass emotional or value-based judgments that may both complement and modify cognitive responses.

6.1.2 Processes and Means of Ambiguity Management

A second stream of future research could focus on the processes and means through which ambiguity management occurs. First, the view of ambiguity as a relational construct brings to the fore the need to theorize ambiguity management as a process unfolding over time, facilitated by relational mechanisms. Reference Abdallah and LangleyAbdallah and Langley (2014) point out that the shift over time that they witnessed – from ambiguity that supports change to ambiguity that stymies an organization – is evident in the various responses of different groups in the organization. In other words, the feedback provided by organizational members over time and the relationships among them transform the perception of ambiguity from generative to constraining. Reference Cappellaro, Compagni and VaaraCappellaro, Compagni, and Vaara (2021) show that maintaining strategic ambiguity is based on the interdependent evolution of the strategies for managing ambiguity enacted by the two sides through interaction. If we are to overcome a view of ambiguity management that is abstracted from time and context and to conceptualize it instead as a social construction relevant for individuals and organizations alike, we need a better understanding of how it works, that is, the mechanisms behind its progression or cyclicality and the transformative effect they may have on the nature of the ambiguity at their core.

Second, it is important to extend our underlying views as to how ambiguity is managed within organizations when dealing with complicated or controversial issues. So far, most studies dealing with ambiguity have focused on the classical discursive and rhetorical means (Reference Jarzabkowski, Sillince and ShawJarzabkowski, Sillince, & Shaw, 2010; Reference Sillince, Jarzabkowski and ShawSillince, Jarzabkowski, & Shaw, 2012) involving rational argumentation or occasionally emotional appeal. It is only relatively recently that, for instance, the underlying value premises – concealed or not – have received attention in this area (Reference Sorsa and VaaraSorsa & Vaara, 2020).

However, other discursive and rhetorical means also play an important role in dealing with ambiguity. This is especially the case with humor and irony, which are often based on double meaning or play with ambiguity (Reference Hatch and ErhlichHatch & Erhlich, 1993; Reference Sewell and BarkerSewell & Barker, 2006). Interestingly, humor has lately received some attention in research on paradox as a means for coping with controversial perspectives. For instance, Reference Jarzabkowski and LêJarzabkowski and Lê (2017) have elaborated on how humor can be used to surface, bring attention to, and make experiences of paradox communicable. Both the need and the ability to deal with contradictions as specific manifestations of ambiguity are at the heart of their analysis. Digging deeper into such discursive and rhetorical processes would seem to be a fruitful avenue for future research to extend and deepen our understanding of the role of humor in dealing with ambiguity.

More specifically, such analysis can focus on irony. By definition, irony allows a stance that is simultaneously associated with two fundamentally different views that are then contrasted to facilitate dealing with complicated issues (Reference Kwon, Clarke, Vaara, Mackay and WodakKwon et al., 2020a, Reference Kwon, Mackay, Clarke, Wodak and Vaara2020b). In a rare study of the use of irony, Reference Kwon, Clarke, Vaara, Mackay and WodakKwon et al. (2020a) showed how it can be applied in four different ways when dealing with controversial issues: “acquiescing” (framing understanding as having no alternative because of environmental constraints), “empowering” (synthesizing a view through broad inputs from different individuals), “channeling” (subsuming other interpretations under a dominant view), and “dismissing” (rejecting alternative interpretations and reinforcing the status quo). In another paper, Reference Kwon, Mackay, Clarke, Wodak and VaaraKwon et al. (2020b) explain how people may construct specific “ironic personae” in order to deal with complicated matters without losing face, thus illuminating another interesting aspect of how ambiguity may be dealt with at the individual level. Future research could zoom in on the use of such discursive or rhetorical strategies in the creation and maintenance of ambiguity in communication at group and organizational levels.

This approach would not only help in advancing specific conceptualizations of ambiguity, but also in developing a theorization of ambiguity as a phenomenon in its own right. In this direction, future research could expand the variety of methods employed to include the analysis of large corpora of text and images. These efforts could capitalize on recent attempts to systematically capture ambiguous language through computational linguistic methodologies and topic modeling (e.g., Reference McMahan and EvansMcMahan & Evans, 2018) combined with the in-depth approaches typical of discourse and rhetorical analyses.

6.2.1 Structural and Politicized Ambiguity in Post-Truth Society and “Bullshit-type” Ambiguity

We are living in a mediatized society where developments in recent decades have revolutionized communication in mass and social media. Among other things this has led to – or at least been part of –increasing polarization in communication to the extent that people have started to use the term “post-truth” society (Reference Knight and TsoukasKnight & Tsoukas, 2019; Reference Parker and RaczParker & Racz, 2020). We have therefore seen how alternative viewpoints and truths have become an essential part of strategic communication. This has also been linked with the creation of “bubbles” of communication where like-minded people can reinforce specific views and interpretations, even apparently distorted or fictitious ones, in their own platforms or spheres.

This multiplicity of truths can be seen as a new structural form of ambiguity that should also be taken seriously in organizational research. It involves both more formal communication strategies used by organizations and more informal communication for example in social media. The point is that many controversial organizational issues, decisions, and actions may become subjects of discussion where ambiguity rather than unanimity about the facts, interpretations, and implications prevails. Moreover, it has become easier for people to raise awareness and target specific organizations or their representatives – for both good and bad. Examples of “good” may be seen in social movements like “MeToo,” “Black Lives Matter,” or climate change where companies have become part of wider societal struggles. Examples of “bad” may include scapegoating or sabotage based, for instance, on the toxic material of “deep fakes.” It would be important to examine how this kind of structural and politicized ambiguity characterizes and affects strategic communication in and around the organizations of both today and tomorrow. This could also involve strategic production of fake news or spreading of conspiracy theories. What are the implications of this type of ambiguity for organizations? What are the potentials and limits for organizations to leverage on such ambiguity and how does its use impact the processes of discursive legitimation or identity construction?

A second feature of mediatized society is the increasing role of the superficial or vacuous in organizational communication. Rather than proposing alternative truths, this type of communication is characterized by “bullshit,” that is, a provocative term that aptly captures aspects of communication that are instrumental in promoting specific discourses but meaningless in content. For instance, the philosopher Harry Frankfurt views bullshit as talk that has no concern for the truth (Reference FrankfurtFrankfurt, 2009). This kind of communication can be linked specifically with the business or management jargon that has become widespread, but is often characterized by window-dressing, political correctness, or sheer emptiness in substance – at times more deliberate, at other times more mindless (Reference SpicerSpicer, 2017, Reference Spicer2020). This kind of communication can be seen as another new type of ambiguity; in this case, the ambiguity emerges from the juxtaposition of meaningful and meaningless communication. Thus, it would be interesting and important to dig deeper into the role of “bullshit ambiguity” in organizations and focus on its consequences. For example, how does the nature of ambiguity – for example, ambiguity based on multiple meanings vis-à-vis ambiguity based on meaningful and meaningless contents – inform the range of potential organizational strategies in order to influence internal and external stakeholders? What are the consequences for organizational legitimacy, identity or power relations?

6.2.2 Ambiguity in Multimodal Strategic Communication

From another kind of perspective, mediatized society alerts us to the importance of updating our understanding of multimodality in organizational communication and its implications for ambiguity. Communication has been and will always be in some ways multimodal (Reference Kress and Van LeeuwenKress & Van Leeuwen, 2001). A mode is a “semiotic resource which allow the simultaneous realization of discourses and types of (inter)action” (Reference Kress and Van LeeuwenKress & Van Leeuwen, 2001: 21); examples of modes are language, images or music. The meaning potential of individual modes is culturally and historically contingent (Reference Jancsary, Höllerer, Meyer, Wodak and MeyerJancsary, Höllerer, & Meyer, 2016). In today’s mediatized society, the role of different communication modes, especially visual communication, has been accentuated (Reference Höllerer, van Leeuwen and JancsaryHöllerer et al., 2019). Consequently, attention should be focused not only on verbal or textual communication, but also on the use of visual and other types of multimodal materials in organizational communication to gain a better understanding of the discursive and rhetorical processes involving strategic ambiguity. We contend that such understanding encompasses two complimentary domains: the relationship between ambiguity and visual communication and that between ambiguity and multimodal communication – where visuals are one mode of communication.

As to the former, there are two key issues for research on ambiguity: can visual communication be more ambiguous than written or verbal communication and what are its implications for organizational processes? By visual communication we refer not only to images, but also to videos, graphs, diagrams, as well as “the way visual composition integrates text, images, color, and typography into new forms of writing that combine words into messages through a visual rather than a linguistic syntax” (Reference Höllerer, van Leeuwen and JancsaryHöllerer et al., 2019).The question of the ambiguity in visual communication has been debated in communication studies (Reference Eppler, Mengis and BrescianiEppler, Mengis, & Bresciani, 2008) and has begun to gain traction in organization studies (Reference Höllerer, Jancsary and GrafströmHöllerer, Jancsary, & Grafström, 2018; Reference QuattroneQuattrone, 2017; Reference Quattrone, Ronzani, Jancsary and HöllererQuattrone et al., 2021). The ambiguity of visual communication relies on the polysemic character of images (Reference Barthes and HeathBarthes, 1977), where the image connotations change in accordance with both the context of the image and the characteristics of the viewer (Reference Eppler, Mengis and BrescianiEppler, Mengis, & Bresciani, 2008: 2). Based on the inherently relational view of ambiguity, some scholars have reflected on the core dimensions of visual ambiguity – that is, the properties of the visual, the people interpreting the visual, and the interaction among people through the visual – and elaborated a taxonomy of visual ambiguity (iconic ambiguity, symbolic ambiguity, indexical ambiguity, background ambiguity, familiarity ambiguity, focus ambiguity, and scope ambiguity) (Reference Eppler, Mengis and BrescianiEppler, Mengis, & Bresciani, 2008).

The question of the impacts of visual ambiguity on organizations remains unresolved. In support of a positive correlation between visuals and ambiguity, it can be argued that the power of imagery is often linked to the emotional appeal that builds on various elements and their meaning potential. In this way, visual communication tends to be more ambiguous. This is because its appeal, while powerful, may also be vague (as in unclarity) and therefore subject to various interpretations that facilitate connections with multiple audiences and discourses (as in equivocality). Since visuals can mirror, mask, and constitute social reality, such ambiguity can be leveraged strategically (Reference Jancsary, Höllerer, Meyer, Wodak and MeyerJancsary, Höllerer, & Meyer, 2016). Hence it would be important to update our understanding of the various discursive and rhetorical strategies generated by managers and organizational members through visuals as well as their complex and ambiguous effects on organizations.

Besides the study of visual communication, it would be important to reflect on the implications for ambiguity of the relationships between the various modes characterizing multimodal discourse. In fact, integration of modes in multimodal texts is gaining attention in organization studies (Reference Boxenbaum, Jones, Meyer and SvejenovaBoxenbaum et al., 2018; Reference Höllerer, Daudigeos and JancsaryHöllerer, Daudigeos, & Jancsary, 2017). For the most part, scholars have attempted to identify principles for positive integration (Reference Van LeeuwenVan Leeuwen, 2005); these include “genre, rhythm, visual composition, conjunction, and dialogue structure” (Reference Höllerer, van Leeuwen and JancsaryHöllerer et al., 2019). However, as each mode has its own way of constructing and transforming reality (Reference Meyer, Höllerer, Jancsary and Van LeeuwenMeyer et al., 2013), it would be important to study ambiguous multimodal communication in the strategic use of multiple modes, also in apparent contrast one with the other, and its implication for organizations. Future research could thus employ multimodal discourse analysis techniques to disentangle such relationships.