I remember a situation in high school when a classmate cheated on an exam. Although the student escaped the case, the concerned teacher suspected the use of unfair means at the time of checking the paper. The teacher called me to ask if I had noticed the student copying during the examination because I sat at the desk right behind that student. Although I had noticed the student cheating, I was unsure about how to respond to the teacher’s query.
I do not enjoy lying and would much rather face the consequences of being truthful in any situation. However, this incident involved another person. That student was not a great friend of mine, but I knew that the person came from a not-very-well-off family. On many occasions during casual conversations, all of us in the class had heard that the student could access our school through a government support program. If I was truthful to the teacher and confirmed the teacher’s suspicion that the student had used unfair means during that exam, the student could face suspension or even more fatal punishments. I was not very sure about the level of punishment. However, I feared that my confirmation might lead to the student losing the government support program. I was very uncomfortable.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In the end, I chose what I today know to be equivocal communication through which I escaped both speaking the truth and telling a complete lie. “I was so busy with my writing that I did not notice what anyone else was up to. I’m sorry.” That was my response to the teacher. It was not entirely false, because I was busy with my writing and had only incidentally spotted that student copying when I had raised my head from my paper to stretch my back once. It was also not a lie as it did not report that the student had not copied. But obviously, my answer was not the complete truth either.
With the training I have now received, I can completely understand that I had resorted to equivocal communication. Equivocation means non-straightforward communication that involves a person deliberately choosing to be ambiguous in one’s response (Bean, 2001, p.65). When accountants apply equivocation in business situations of failed projects, the management does not get to know the real picture, and it may have far-reaching undesirable consequences like useless resource deployment and considerable profit loss. Experiments with student respondents in business communication reveal that equivocation is sometimes preferred over-communicating the truth. Referring to Bavelas, Black, Chovil, and Mullet’s 1990 book on equivocal communication, Bean points out that people resort to deliberate ambiguity in communication in an avoidance-avoidance conflict situation (Bean, 2001, p. 67). Such a situation arises when one has to choose between two equally unpalatable undesirable or unattractive goals. A later study (Kline, Simunich & Weber, 2008) also reports that indirect or non-straightforward communication is a preferred option in a corporate crisis that involves an avoidance-avoidance goal conflict. The same group of young adult respondents reported a preference for a straightforward, non-equivocal response if such a crisis does not involve avoidance-avoidance goal conflict.
Juxtaposing these findings with the personal situation reported, it is clear that equivocation emerged as a choice because of the avoidance-avoidance goal conflict. I had to choose between making a false statement to a teacher or putting a fellow student’s future in jeopardy. Both were equally undesirable to me and hence, an indirect response seemed the best option. People sometimes choose to respond equivocally due to social values even when no self-interest is involved (Bean, 2001, p. 68). That is because social norms play a significant role in determining the need for ambiguity or response. That is why equivocal communication happens more in social situations than in business spaces as social relationships get prioritized over speaking the truth in specific situations.
The personal situation reported here was one that did not involve any self-interest, but I still preferred to be equivocal in my response. That was because of my entrenched personal value of avoiding harm to another person to the extent possible. This is a value, acquired and nurtured through socialization. My preference for avoiding falsehoods also played an important role in determining my ambiguous response. Though the situation was not strictly social, the relationship between a teacher and a student has a professional element to it.
Equivocal responses can be of two types: those that contain an indirect attempt at truth and those that are complete non-answers (Bean, 2001, pp.65-66). I would classify mine as more an indirect attempt at truth than a complete non-answer because I did not rule out the possibility of that student employing unfair means. It was positive insofar as it left the teacher with the option of asking other students sitting near that particular student. Equivocal responses can be constructive when they open up space for additional interpretations (Bean, 2001, p. 74). However, there were obvious negative consequences of my choice in that situation also. One of them was to allow government support program resources to remain tied to a student who is not interested in studying and making good use of that support.
Today, with the knowledge that I now have, I would choose to be truthful to the teacher, but I would add a request for a lenient disciplinary measure that would not cut out government support to that student. This reflection helps me realize clearly that equivocation it is better to make equivocal communication a study subject in business ethics to prepare young people for dilemmas they are likely to face in business situations. As Miller and Stiff (2008) have pointed out in their book, deceptive communication can take many verbal and non-verbal forms.
References
- Bean, D. F. (2001). Equivocal reporting: ethical communication issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, ½, 65-76.
- Kline, S. L., Simunich, B., & Weber, H. (2008). Understanding the Effects of Nonstraightforward Communication in Organizational Discourse: The Case of Equivocal Messages and Corporate Identity. Communication Research, 35(6), 770–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208324269
- Miller, G.R. & Stiff, J.B. (1993). Deceptive Communication. London & New York: Sage Publications.
Stuck on your essay?
