I argue that Strategic Ambiguity (SA) is a positive. Yes you don’t want it to be the only form of communication, but I think all of the communication has it proper place. (Maybe not claiming your relationship to Hockey stars, or maybe?). I think using SA as a way of communicating allows for correction to be done without requiring humility or fault. This type of communication is very helpful in business (which I think is why you readily had those examples).
Context dependent communicators are way better than anyone who just sticks to only a single box. Including lying.
I agree that strategic ambiguity can help people avoid embarrassment or retreat without admitting fault. But wouldn’t the better response be to admit it, correct yourself, and move on?
Maybe business complicates things by having competing interests between individuals and entities. But on an individual level, I know my favorite friendships are the ones where we push as much as we can into the truth rather than managing perception.
I agree, but I think that is because you are thinking about the easiest ideal relationships. So yeah, ideal as far as legibility is concerned is everything in the top right with everyone having capacity to handle criticism and challenge, but that just isn’t the case.
Probably talking past each other in the end. I agree with your ideal state, I’m just describing that we will never live in that and so to manage the many different situations every option is good because they are all context dependent. Plus the judgement is one sided (because it can’t be both) so me lying to obtain what I want is good if I get what I want (especially if there is no realized downside).
I argue that Strategic Ambiguity (SA) is a positive. Yes you don’t want it to be the only form of communication, but I think all of the communication has it proper place. (Maybe not claiming your relationship to Hockey stars, or maybe?). I think using SA as a way of communicating allows for correction to be done without requiring humility or fault. This type of communication is very helpful in business (which I think is why you readily had those examples).
Context dependent communicators are way better than anyone who just sticks to only a single box. Including lying.
I agree that strategic ambiguity can help people avoid embarrassment or retreat without admitting fault. But wouldn’t the better response be to admit it, correct yourself, and move on?
Maybe business complicates things by having competing interests between individuals and entities. But on an individual level, I know my favorite friendships are the ones where we push as much as we can into the truth rather than managing perception.
I agree, but I think that is because you are thinking about the easiest ideal relationships. So yeah, ideal as far as legibility is concerned is everything in the top right with everyone having capacity to handle criticism and challenge, but that just isn’t the case.
Probably talking past each other in the end. I agree with your ideal state, I’m just describing that we will never live in that and so to manage the many different situations every option is good because they are all context dependent. Plus the judgement is one sided (because it can’t be both) so me lying to obtain what I want is good if I get what I want (especially if there is no realized downside).