Strategic ambiguity and the ethic of significant choice in the tabacco industry's crisis communication

Communication Studies, Fall 1997 by Ulmer, Robert R, Sellnow, Timothy L

The complexity of organizational crises allows for multiple interpretations of evidence, intentions, and responsibility surrounding the crises. Through the use of strategic ambiguity, organizations typically emphasize an interpretation where the organization is viewed most favorably. We offer the criteria of significant choice as a means for evaluating the ethical implications of strategic ambiguity in organizational crisis communication. These criteria are applied to the tobacco industry as a case study. We conclude that the tobacco industry leaders' crisis response was ethically questionable because the ambiguity it produced was based on incomplete and biased information. This strategic use of ambiguity diminished the deliberative ability of the tobacco industry's stakeholders.

Organizational crises are complex events which have the ability to affect both an organization and its constituents. The turmoil recently created for such corporations as ValuJet (crash of Flight 592), Texaco (racial discrimination), and Odwalla (E. coli outbreak) clearly illustrates this point. ValuJet's stock plummeted dramatically and the airline was grounded temporarily Texaco experienced lawsuits and boycotts. Odwalla faced public scrutiny regarding consumer safety and the pasteurization of apple juice. On ValuJet Flight 592, 110 passengers perished. Moreover, their families suffered greatly throughout the long, tedious investigation. Texaco employees suffered the humiliation of being associated with a company whose leadership was investigated for racial discrimination. Odwalla customers who were infected with the E. coli bacteria experienced severe health problems. However, these victims represent only a fraction of the greater community of stakeholders-individuals affected by the crises. Stockholders, suppliers, customers, creditors, and many other groups were affected by these crises as well. Most recently, the ethics of the tobacco industry's actions and communication regarding nicotine have been questioned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Consequently, the social legitimacy of the entire tobacco industry is threatened.

Although crisis is defined in a variety of ways throughout the communication literature, Fink (1986) provides a comprehensive designation. He sees an organizational crisis as a situation that runs the risk of escalating intensity, falling under close media or government scrutiny, interfering with the normal operations of business, jeopardizing the positive public image presently enjoyed by a company or its officers, and damaging a company's bottom line in any way (pp. 15-16). Much of the crisis communication literature suggests that an organization can minimize its losses by providing a quick and appropriate response to its stakeholders (Allen & Caillouet, 1994; Marconi, 1992; Scheutz, 1990; Seeger, 1986; Sellnow & Seeger, 1989; Williams & Treadaway, 1992). Furthermore, communication scholars have developed and tested various typologies of image restoration strategies that organizations may use to communicate to their publics (Benoit, 1995; Coombs, 1995; Hearit, 1995; Ware & Linkugel, 1973). However, few studies have considered the ethical nature of communicating in the aftermath of a crisis. For example, we know that denial and shifting blame are strategies available to organizations. Yet few instances of crisis occur in which organizations can completely absolve themselves of responsibility. More often, these attempts at denial or displacing blame introduce ambiguity into the legal, financial, and public debate in an effort to question the accuracy of claims against the organization or the degree to which the organization is responsible for the crisis. Of foremost concern is the degree to which such ambiguity has ethical implications for the diverse stakeholders in the crisis. We contend that organizational crises are, by their nature, inherently ambiguous. For this reason, crises represent multiple interpretations pertaining to how the crisis originated and who is responsible for it. To illustrate this point we first offer the perspective of significant choice as a set of criteria for ascertaining the degree to which ambiguous communication by an organization is ethical. Second, we apply these criteria to the tobacco industry's initial response to the FDA's claims that it had manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes. Finally, implications are provided concerning ambiguity, ethics, and post-crisis communication.

SIGNIFICANT CHOICE

Nilsen (1974) reasons that free and informed choice is the fundamental component of a healthy democracy. Hence, there exists an ethical obligation for those in positions of influence to provide the information to their constituencies that is necessary for making well-reasoned decisions. Nilsen labels this process "significant choice." Significant choice occurs in an environment free of coercion and is "based on the best information available when the decision must be made" (p. 45). Nilsen explains the relationship between communication and significant choice thusly, "When we communicate to influence the attitudes, beliefs and actions of others, the ethical touchstone is the degree of free, informed, and critical choice on matters of significance in their lives that is fostered by our speaking" (p. 46).