IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v23y2012i3p630-650.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shaping Strategic Action Through the Rhetorical Construction and Exploitation of Ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • John Sillince

    (Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0QU, United Kingdom)

  • Paula Jarzabkowski

    (Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, United Kingdom)

  • Duncan Shaw

    (Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, United Kingdom)

Abstract

This paper extends existing understandings of how actors' constructions of ambiguity shape the emergent process of strategic action. We theoretically elaborate the role of rhetoric in exploiting strategic ambiguity, based on analysis of a longitudinal case study of an internationalization strategy within a business school. Our data show that actors use rhetoric to construct three types of strategic ambiguity: protective ambiguity that appeals to common values in order to protect particular interests, invitational ambiguity that appeals to common values in order to invite participation in particular actions, and adaptive ambiguity that enables the temporary adoption of specific values in order to appeal to a particular audience at one point in time. These rhetorical constructions of ambiguity follow a processual pattern that shapes the emergent process of strategic action. Our findings show that (1) the strategic actions that emerge are shaped by the way actors construct and exploit ambiguity, (2) the ambiguity intrinsic to the action is analytically distinct from ambiguity that is constructed and exploited by actors, and (3) ambiguity construction shifts over time to accommodate the emerging pattern of actions.

Suggested Citation

  • John Sillince & Paula Jarzabkowski & Duncan Shaw, 2012. "Shaping Strategic Action Through the Rhetorical Construction and Exploitation of Ambiguity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 630-650, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:23:y:2012:i:3:p:630-650
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0670
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0670
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1110.0670?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eero Vaara & Birgit Kleymann & Hannu Seristö, 2004. "Strategies as Discursive Constructions: The Case of Airline Alliances," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 1-35, January.
    2. Olivier Boiral, 2003. "ISO 9000: Outside the Iron Cage," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 720-737, December.
    3. Shepsle, Kenneth A., 1972. "The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(2), pages 555-568, June.
    4. L. J. Bourgeois & David R. Brodwin, 1984. "Strategic implementation: Five approaches to an elusive phenomenon," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(3), pages 241-264, July.
    5. Tomz, Michael & Van Houweling, Robert P., 2009. "The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(1), pages 83-98, February.
    6. John A. A. Sillince, 2002. "A Model of the Strength and Appropriateness of Argumentation in Organizational Contexts," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 585-618, July.
    7. Karen Golden-Biddle & Karen Locke, 1993. "Appealing Work: An Investigation of How Ethnographic Texts Convince," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 595-616, November.
    8. Karen Locke & Karen Golden-Biddle & Martha S. Feldman, 2008. "Perspective---Making Doubt Generative: Rethinking the Role of Doubt in the Research Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(6), pages 907-918, December.
    9. Loizos Heracleous, 2006. "A Tale of Three Discourses: The Dominant, the Strategic and the Marginalized," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(5), pages 1059-1087, July.
    10. Henry Mintzberg, 1978. "Patterns in Strategy Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(9), pages 934-948, May.
    11. Glazer, Amihai, 1990. "The Strategy of Candidate Ambiguity," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(1), pages 237-241, March.
    12. Sally Maitlis & Thomas B. Lawrence, 2003. "Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark: Understanding Failure in Organizational Strategizing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 109-139, January.
    13. David J. Wilkinson, 2006. "The Ambiguity Advantage," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-59789-1, December.
    14. Russell W. Coff, 1999. "When Competitive Advantage Doesn't Lead to Performance: The Resource-Based View and Stakeholder Bargaining Power," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 119-133, April.
    15. Pettigrew, Andrew & Massini, Silvia & Numagami, Tsuyoshi, 2000. "Innovative forms of organising in Europe and Japan," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 259-273, June.
    16. John Hendry, 2000. "Strategic Decision Mking, Discourse, And Strategy As Social Practice," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 955-978, November.
    17. Enriqueta Aragonès & Zvika Neeman, 2000. "Strategic Ambiguity in Electoral Competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 183-204, April.
    18. Eero Vaara & Janne Tienari & Risto Santti, 2003. "The international match: Metaphors as vehicles of social identity building in cross-border mergers," Post-Print hal-02311681, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saku Mantere & Eero Vaara, 2008. "On the Problem of Participation in Strategy: A Critical Discursive Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 341-358, April.
    2. Rothengatter, Marloes, 2016. "Insights in cognitive patterns : Essays on heuristics and identification," Other publications TiSEM 5f812a9d-8968-48b8-8d1b-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Burkhard Schipper & Hee Yeul Woo, 2012. "Political Awareness and Microtargeting of Voters in Electoral Competition," Working Papers 124, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    4. Nichole Szembrot, 2017. "Are voters cursed when politicians conceal policy preferences?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 25-41, October.
    5. Vardan, Baghdasaryan & Elena, Manzoni, 2016. "Set them (almost) free. Discretion in electoral campaigns under asymmetric information," Working Papers 354, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised 13 Dec 2016.
    6. Yasushi Asako, 2015. "Campaign promises as an imperfect signal: How does an extreme candidate win against a moderate candidate?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(4), pages 613-649, October.
    7. Sivan Frenkel, 2014. "Competence and ambiguity in electoral competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 219-234, April.
    8. Burkhard Schipper & Hee Yeul Woo, 2012. "Political Awareness and Microtargeting of Voters in Electoral Competition," Working Papers 46, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    9. Burkhard Schipper & Hee Yeul Woo, 2014. "Political Awareness, Microtargeting of Voters, and Negative Electoral Campaigning," Working Papers 148, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    10. Schipper, Burkhard C. & Woo, Hee Yeul, 2019. "Political Awareness, Microtargeting of Voters, and Negative Electoral Campaigning," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 14(1), pages 41-88, January.
    11. Virpi Sorsa & Eero Vaara, 2020. "How Can Pluralistic Organizations Proceed with Strategic Change? A Processual Account of Rhetorical Contestation, Convergence, and Partial Agreement in a Nordic City Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 839-864, July.
    12. Steensen, Elmer Fly, 2014. "Five types of organizational strategy," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 266-281.
    13. Feng Liu & Sally Maitlis, 2014. "Emotional Dynamics and Strategizing Processes: A Study of Strategic Conversations in Top Team Meetings," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 202-234, March.
    14. Julia Balogun & Claus Jacobs & Paula Jarzabkowski & Saku Mantere & Eero Vaara, 2014. "Placing Strategy Discourse in Context: Sociomateriality, Sensemaking, and Power," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 175-201, March.
    15. Maarten C. W. Janssen & Mariya Teteryatnikova, 2017. "Mystifying but not misleading: when does political ambiguity not confuse voters?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(3), pages 501-524, September.
    16. Hector Galindo-Silva, 2024. "Ideological ambiguity and political spectrum," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 139-180, June.
    17. Kimiko Terai & Amihai Glazer, 2018. "Rivalry among agents seeking large budgets," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(4), pages 388-409, October.
    18. Sophie Bade, 2016. "Divergent platforms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(4), pages 561-580, April.
    19. Theresa Langenmayr & David Seidl & Violetta Splitter, 2024. "Interdiscursive struggles: Managing the co‐existence of the conventional and open strategy discourse," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(9), pages 1696-1730, September.
    20. Kroszner, Randall S. & Stratmann, Thomas, 1999. "Does Political Ambiguity Pay? Corporate Campaign contributions and the Rewards to Legislator Reputation," Working Papers 155, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:23:y:2012:i:3:p:630-650. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.