Strategic ambiguity: a systematic review, a typology and a dynamic capability view

Louisa V. Selivanovskikh · Pier Luigi Giardino · Matteo Cristofaro · Yongjian Bao · Wenlong Yuan · Luming Wang

27 citations0/0 files storedManagement Decision

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Management and Organizational Studies Public Relations and Crisis Communication Organizational Strategy and Culture

Abstract

Purpose While strategic ambiguity has increasingly been used as a communication practice in response to crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and global conflicts, its proactive role in shaping organizations remains underexamined. Moreover, a comprehensive investigation into its antecedents, moderators, mechanisms, and outcomes – aligned with specific strategic ambiguity aims – is still lacking. We investigate how organizations deploy strategic ambiguity to shape their environment and identify the factors that affect the effectiveness of strategic ambiguity in achieving diverse strategic aims. Design/methodology/approach We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of 22 empirical studies on strategic ambiguity in organizational communication. We analyzed articles using the Gioia method to identify its key components – antecedents, mechanisms, moderators, and outcomes – based on the pursued aim. Findings We reframe strategic ambiguity as a dynamic capability and, building on this, we introduce a novel typology of strategic ambiguity based on two key dimensions: organizational flexibility (centralized vs decentralized) and environmental responsiveness (proactive vs reactive). Four distinct aims of strategic ambiguity, each with specific antecedents, mechanisms, moderators, and outcomes, emerge: (1) collaboration and engagement, (2) flexibility and adaptability, (3) control and influence and (4) reputation and legal protection. Originality/value We reframe the understanding of strategic ambiguity by positioning it as a dynamic capability rather than merely a strategic communication practice. By introducing a typology that outlines antecedents, mechanisms, moderators, and outcomes for each specific aim, we offer a structured framework for comprehensively understanding and leveraging strategic ambiguity.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

References

1997Dynamic capabilities and strategic management 2007Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance 2003Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence‐Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review 2000Dynamic capabilities: what are they?2012Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2007Methodological fit in management field research 2014Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.