Abstract
This article reflects on two questions in administrative practice. First, whether formal training in speech communication prepares individuals for administrative roles. Second, whether classroom models of communication correspond to organizational realities. Drawing on experience as an academic administrator, the analysis offers a qualified affirmation on both counts while challenging the field’s assumption that communication should always strive for common meaning and high fidelity. The argument advances equivocality as a strategic resource in settings marked by conflicting demands, uncertain audiences, and high stakes decisions. It synthesizes theoretical work on equivocal messaging and disqualification to explain why administrators sometimes benefit from ambiguity, indirection, selective framing, and carefully staged interactions that avoid premature closure. These practices can enable consensus building, face saving, and protection of credibility when directness would foreclose options or intensify conflict. The article acknowledges ethical tensions and notes personal preference for candor, yet concludes that professional communication education should prepare leaders to manage ambiguity as well as clarity, and to calibrate message form to context and constraint.
Recommended Citation
Myers, Michele T.
(1986)
"Equivocality: The Managerial Art of Hedging,"
Association for Communication Administration Bulletin: Vol. 58, Article 29.
Available at:
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/aca/vol58/iss1/29
