1
Abstract: Ambiguity as a Tool to Address Organizational Audiences Broadly
Strategic Ambiguity as a Tool to Address Organizational Audiences Broadly
Devika Banerji
Purdue University
2
Abstract: Ambiguity as a Tool to Address Organizational Audiences Broadly
Many scholars have suggested that messages that are tailored to a specific audience are
more persuasive compared to messages directed at a general audience. Emphasizing characteristics
of a target group and adapting messages to appeal to a specific audience is reasoned to be perceived
as more relevant, resonate more with individuals, and increase the message’s appeal or
persuasiveness (Rimer and Kreuter, 2006). In fact, so common is this assumption that it has often
been treated as axiomatic; but there is also empirical evidence demonstrating a variety of effects
of message tailoring (Dillard & Pfau, 2002). Hornikx and O'Keefe (2009) conducted a metaanalytic review of consumer advertisements and found that advertisements which are adapted to
an audience are more persuasive and better liked than un-adapted messages. The findings that
messages are more effective when tailored to a target audience have been echoed by several studies
in the area of persuasive health campaigns (Kreuter & Wray, 2003; Brug, Steenhuis, Assema & de
Vries, 1996; Kreuter, Bull, Clark & Oswald, 1999).
Whereas the interpersonal literature has stressed the effectiveness of tailored messages that
appeal to very specific audiences, scholars in organizational communication have identified
situations in which communicators are inclined to appeal to broad audiences and in which tailoring
messages to specific audiences can be counter-productive. Often, organizations seek to influence
and appeal to a variety of audiences simultaneously and seek outcomes that are related to each
other but contradictory (Eisenberg, 1984, Putnam and Sorenson, 1982, Jarzabkowski, Sillince, &
Shaw, 2010, Barley, Leonardi and Bailey, 2012). As a consequence, organizations often use
strategic ambiguity in their communication (Eisenberg, 1984), particularly when they deal with
multiple audiences or multiple goals, when goals can change over time, or when they lack well
defined or explicitly stated goals. While several organizational scholars have demonstrated the use
3
Abstract: Ambiguity as a Tool to Address Organizational Audiences Broadly
of strategic ambiguity in various organizational contexts, the connections between persuasion,
message tailoring, and strategic ambiguity have not been explicated.
This project started out to delineate the connection between ambiguity and persuasion in
organizational contexts by demonstrating that ambiguous messages can be used to simultaneously
appeal to multiple and different audiences. In contrast to one-audience tailoring used in earlier
interpersonal studies, this research project is exploring if ambiguous messages can appeal to
several audiences simultaneously within the context of credit card choices.
Credit card companies cater to a wide range of audiences, who in turn have varying
attitudes towards finance and show diverse financial behaviors, all of which are important for their
successful operation (Kara et al., 1996; Kotter, 1996; Gioia; 2012, Shefrin and Nicols, 2014).
Analyzing these attitudes, Shefrin and Nicols (2014) classified credit card users as being either
high control users (seeking financial control and expense planning) or low control users
(prioritizing ease and convenience over finances). Using this typology and through an
experimental design, this study tests the persuasive appeal of strategically ambiguous messages.
H1: Messages targeted at high control consumers will be most persuasive for individuals
with high control styles and least persuasive for individuals with low control styles.
H2: Messages targeted at low control consumers will be most persuasive for individuals
with low control styles and least persuasive for individuals with high control styles.
H3: Ambiguous messages will be less persuasive than tailored messages that match
characteristics of an audience but will be more persuasive than tailored messages that do not match
characteristics of the audience.
4
Abstract: Ambiguity as a Tool to Address Organizational Audiences Broadly
Method
To test the hypotheses, the study uses an experimental design. Participants are asked to
choose between six credit cards that are presented in a complete pair comparison. Each credit card
has a message along with the product features. Message features are either tailored to participants
with a high control financial style by using cues like ability to manage, build or control finances;
or message features are tailored to a low control financial style with cues that emphasize ease of
use and convenience; ambiguous messages combine cues that appeal to both high and low control
credit card users.
After the choice tasks, the level of appeal for each credit card option is measured on a
Likert scale. The financial style survey developed by Shefrin and Nicols (2014) is used to classify
participants as high or low control consumers. Following the proposed hypotheses, we expect that
participants who show a clear tendency towards high or low control like those cards most that are
adapted to their respective style (matched messages) and like those cards least that are adapted to
the opposite style (mismatched messages). Ambiguous messages are expected to be moderately
appealing. A first set of data will be presented at the OCMC.
5
Abstract: Ambiguity as a Tool to Address Organizational Audiences Broadly
References
Barley, W. C., Leonardi, P. M., & Bailey, D. E. (2012). Engineering objects for collaboration:
Strategies of ambiguity and clarity at knowledge boundaries. Human communication
research, 38(3), 280-308.
Brug, J., Steenhuis, I., van Assema, P., & de Vries, H. (1996). The impact of a computer-tailored
nutrition intervention. Preventive medicine, 25(3), 236-242.
Dillard, J. P., &Pfau, M. W. (2002). The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and
practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational
communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227-242.
Eisenberg, E. M., H. Goodall Jr. (1997). Organizational Communication: Balancing Creativity
and Constraint. St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Gioia, D. A., Nag, R., Corley, K., G.( 2012).Visionary ambiguity and strategic change: the virtue
of vagueness in launching major organizational change. Journal of Management Inquiry,
21, 364-372.
Hornikx, J., & O'Keefe, D. J. (2009). Adapting consumer advertising appeals to cultural values.
Communication Yearbook, 33, 39-71.
Jarzabkowski, P., Sillince, J. A., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource
for enabling multiple interests. Human relations, 63(2), 219-248.
Kara, A., Kaynak, E., &Kucukemiroglu (1996). An empirical investigation of US credit card
users: card choice and usage behavior. International Business Review, 5(2), 209-230.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
6
Abstract: Ambiguity as a Tool to Address Organizational Audiences Broadly
Kreuter, M. W., Bull, F. C., Clark, E. M., & Oswald, D. L. (1999). Understanding how people
process health information: a comparison of tailored and nontailored weight-loss materials.
Health Psychology, 18(5), 487.
Kreuter, M. W., & Wray, R. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication: strategies
for enhancing information relevance. American Journal of Health Behavior,
27(Supplement 3), 227-232.
O’Keefe, D. J. (1997). Standpoint explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of
the effects of varying conclusion articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and
Advocacy, 34(1), 1-12.
Putnam, L. L., & Sorenson, R. L. (1982). Equivocal messages in organizations. Human
Communication Research, 8(2), 114-132.
Rimer, B. K., &Kreuter, M. W. (2006). Advancing tailored health communication: A persuasion
and message effects perspective. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 184-201.
Sillince, J., Jarzabkowski, P., & Shaw, D. (2012). Shaping strategic action through the rhetorical
construction and exploitation of ambiguity. Organization Science, 23(3), 630-650.
Shefrin, H., &Nicols, C. (2014). Credit card behavior, financial styles, and heuristics. Journal of
Business Research, 67, 1679-1687.
Skinner, C. S., Schildkraut, J. M., Berry, D., Calingaert, B., Marcom, B. K., Sugarman, J., et al.
(2002). Pre-counseling education materials for BRCA testing: Does tailoring make a
difference? Genetic Testing, 6(2), 93–105.
7
Abstract: Ambiguity as a Tool to Address Organizational Audiences Broadly
Strecher, V. J., Shiffman, S., & West, R. (2005). Randomized controlled trial of a web‐based
computer‐tailored smoking cessation program as a supplement to nicotine patch therapy.
Addiction, 100(5), 682-688.