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

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 organizationsremains 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. 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. 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. 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 outcomesfor each specific aim, we offer a structured framework for comprehensively understanding and leveraging strategic ambiguity