Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consistent Questions of Ambiguity in Organizational Crisis Communication: Jack in the Box as a Case Study

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The complexity of crisis situations allows for corporate responses to create multiple interpretations for organizational stakeholders concerning crisis evidence, the organization's intentions, and the locus of responsibility. Hence, organizations have the ability to emphasize an interpretation where the organization is viewed most favorably. Using Jack in the Box as a case study, we apply stakeholder theory to ascertain the ethical implications of employing strategic ambiguity in organizational crisis communication. We conclude that the crisis response provided by Jack in the Box's leaders was ethically questionable in the areas of evidence, intent, and locus because the ambiguity they introduced privileged their financial stakeholders over others. Ultimately, this strategic use of ambiguity diminished the deliberative ability of Jack in the Box's publics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adelson, A.: 1993, July 9, ‘Jack in The Box Francisees Cite Parent Concern in Surf’, The New York Times, p. C3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, W. M. and R. H. Caillouet: 1994, ‘Legitimization Endeavors: Impression Management Strategies Used by an Organization in Crisis’, Communication Monographs 61, 44–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, W. L.: 1995, Accounts, Excuses and Apologies(State University of New York Press, Albany, NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, G: 1991, Rhetoric in an Organizational Society(University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, G. and S. Vibbert: 1987, ‘Corporate Discourse: Public Relations and Issue Management’, in F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts and L. W. Porter (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication(Sage, Newbury Park, CA), pp. 165–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crable, R. E. and S. L. Vibbert: 1985, ‘Managing Issues and Influencing Public Policy’, Public Relations Review 11, 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • End of Chapter 1 in Food Poisoning; Hospital Releases Girl, 10, in Jack in the Box Case as 40 Suits are Pending: 1993, July 1, The New York Times, p. A14.

  • Eisenberg, E. M.: 1984, ‘Ambiguity as Strategy in Organizational Communication’, Communication Monographs 51, 227–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, E. M. and H. L. Goodall Jr.: 1997, Organizational Communication: Balancing Creativity and Constraint, 2nd edition (St. Martin's Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, E. M. and M. G. Witten: 1987, ‘Reconsidering Openness in Organizational Communication’, Academy of Management Review 12(3), 418–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, S.: 1986, Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable(AMACOM, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach(Pitman Publishing, Marshfield, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodnight, T. G.: 1989, ‘Toward a Social Theory of Argumentation’, Argumentation and Advocacy 26, 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearit, K. M.: 1995, ‘From “We Didn't Do It” to “It's Not Our Fault”: The Use of Apologia in Public Relations Crises’, in W. N. Elwood (ed.), Public Relations Inquiry as Rhetorical Criticism(Praeger Westport, CT), pp. 117–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, R. L.: 1994, Management of Corporate Communication: From Interpersonal Contacts to External Affairs(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, R. L.: 1997, Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges(Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, C. F.: 1963, ‘Some Consequences of Crisis which Limit the Viability of Organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 8(1), 61–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ice, R.: 1991, ‘Corporate Publics and Rhetorical Strategies: The Case of Union Carbide's Bhopal Crisis’, Management Communication Quarterly 4(3), 341–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jack in the Box's Worst Nightmare: 1993, February 6, The New York Times, p. 35.

  • Johannesen, R. L.: 1996, Ethics in Human Communication, 4th edition (Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M.: 1995, ‘Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics’, Academy of Management Review 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M. and K. Yuthas: 1997, ‘Corporate Social Performance, Stakeholder Orientation, and Organizational Moral Development’, Journal of Business Ethics 16, 1213–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marconi, J.: 1992, Crisis Marketing: When Bad Things Happen to Good Companies(Probus Publishing Company, Chicago).

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, A. A. and R. S. Goodman: 1991, ‘Victims and Shareholders: The Dilemmas of Presenting Corporate Policy During a Crisis’, Academy of Management Journal 34, 281–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., K., B., R. Agle and D. J. Wood: 1997, ‘Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’, Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, R. J.: 1993, Remarks by: R. J. Nugent: President, Jack in the Box, U.S.A. before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Research, Forestry, Conservation, and General Legislation(San Diego, California, Available from Jack in the Box Inc., U.S.A.).

  • Pauchant, T. C. and I. I. Mitroff: 1992, Transforming the Crisis-prone Organization( Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, J. and C. A. Strbiak: 1997, ‘The Ethics of Strategic Ambiguity’, The Journal of Business Communication 34(2), 149–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C.: 1984, Normal Accidents(Basic Books, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Petress, K. and A. King: 1990, ‘Iran Contra and the Defeat of Accountability’, Communication Reports 3, 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A.: 1997, ‘Stakeholder Theory and a Principle of Fairness’, Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1), 51–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prelli, L. J.: 1989, A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse(University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuetz, J.: 1990, ‘Corporate Advocacy as Argumentation’, in R. Trapp and J. Schuetz (eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation(Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL), pp. 272–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, P. D. and M. W. Seeger: 1991, ‘Corporate Centered Apologia: Iacocca in Defense of Chrysler’, Speaker and Gavel 28(1-4), 50–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seeger, M. W.: 1986, ‘The Challenger Tragedy and Search for Legitimacy’, Central States Speech Journal 37(3), 147–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seeger, M. W.: 1997, Ethics and Organizational Communication(Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Seeger, M. W. and B. Bolz: 1996, ‘Technological Transfer and Multinational Corporations in the Union Carbide Crisis Bhopal, India’, in J. A. Jaksa and M. S. Pritchard (eds.), Responsible Communication: Ethical Issues in Business, Industry, and the Professions(Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ), pp. 245–265.

  • Seeger, M. W., T. L. Sellnow and R. R. Ulmer: 1998, ‘Communication, Organization and Crisis’, in M. E. Roloff (ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 21 (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 231–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellnow, T. L.: 1993, ‘Scientific Argument in Organizational Crisis Communication: The Case of Exxon’, Argumentation and Advocacy 30, 28–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellnow, T. L. and M. W. Seeger: 1989, ‘Crisis Messages: Wall Street and the Reagan Administration after Black Monday’, Speaker and Gavel 26, 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellnow, T. L. and R. R. Ulmer: 1995, ‘Ambiguous Argument as Advocacy in Organizational Crisis Communication’, Argumentation and Advocacy 31, 138–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellnow, T. L., R. R. Ulmer and M. Snider: 1998, ‘The Compatibility of Corrective Action in Organizational crisis Communication’, Communication Quarterly 46, 60–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P.: 1987, ‘A Conceptual Framework for Environmental Analysis of Social Issues and Evaluation of Business Response Patterns’, in S. P. Sethi and C. M. Falbe (eds.), Business and Society: Dimensions of Conflict and Cooperation(Lexington Books, Lexington, MA), pp. 39–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P.: 1987, Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis(Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L. and P. Field: 1996, Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes(The Free Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, R. R. and T. L. Sellnow: 1995, ‘External Agencies as Advocates in Organizational Crisis Communication: The Bismarck Wood House as a Case Study’, North Dakota Journal of Speech and Theatre 8(1), 56–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, R. R. and T. L. Sellnow: 1997, ‘Strategic Ambiguity and the Ethic of Significant Choice in the Tobacco Industry's Crisis Communication’, Communication Studies 48(3), 215–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wander, P. C.: 1976, ‘The Rhetoric of Science’, Western Speech Communication 40, 226–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E.: 1988, ‘Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations’, Journal of Management Studies 25(4), 305–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E.: 1995, Sensemaking in Organizations(Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. E. and G. Treadaway: 1992, ‘Exxon and the Valdez Accident: A Failure in Crisis Communication’, Communication Studies 43, 56–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. L. and B. Goss: 1975, ‘Equivocation: Character Insurance’, Human Communication Research 1, 265–270.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2801 South University Avenue, Little Rock, AR, 72204-1099, U.S.A.

    Robert R. Ulmer

  2. Department of Communication, North Dakota State University, P.O. Box 5075, Fargo, ND, 58105-5075, U.S.A.

    Timothy L. Sellnow

Authors
  1. Robert R. Ulmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy L. Sellnow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ulmer, R.R., Sellnow, T.L. Consistent Questions of Ambiguity in Organizational Crisis Communication: Jack in the Box as a Case Study. Journal of Business Ethics 25, 143–155 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006183805499

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006183805499

Keywords

Search

Navigation