The Ethics of Strategic Ambiguity

6/18/09 Sun Tzu, The Art of War This paper examines Strategic Ambiguity and the need to have an ethical direction for a favorable outcome for any business model. I will bring to light how unethical behavior can decrease a favorable outcome, and could in fact taint a company forever, such as it did with the case of "Strategic ambiguity and the ethic of significant choice in the tobacco industry's crisis communication"2. As a reader you will walk through different scenarios and draw from the vast knowledge of subject matter experts in this subject and understand how strategic ambiguity can be obtained to gain and edge or help stay afloat. At the conclusion you will notice that there is an underlying fundament ethics that strategic ambiguity must meet in order for a company to grow and live harmoniously with the truth. A favorable outcome that is being achieved while ethical decisions must be made in order to achieve a successful way of communication. SUMMARY: The ethics of strategic ambiguity Also in the “The ethics of strategic ambiguity” a receiver will "attach a meaning that is congruent with his attitudes, thus assimilating the message" (Goss & Williams, 1973, p. 166). Williams and Goss (1975) describe this use of strategic ambiguity as "a kind of character insurance for people who are perceived as credible" (p. 265). This is important if any miscommunication is present and there is deniability for useful for preserving future options. In other words you are saving face. On the other hand if an Organization is in a crisis and trying to quickly point blame away from itself it could tarnish the groups branding like it did in the case stud of Jack in the box article. Crisis communication that privileges the needs of a few crisis stakeholders over others, by introducing biased and/or incomplete information regarding questions of evidence, intent, and locus, is unethical. Even though this is an Organization their meaning is not congruent with their