This is probably one of the most important questions a leader needs to answer right now. The challenge of how to navigate ambiguity is not going away. Instead, it is continuing to expand, and to generate a high degree of complexity.
As we explore this question in more depth, we need to start with a definition of the word, ambiguity. The dictionary tells us that it is “the quality of being open to more than one interpretation”. It also states that it is “something unclear that can be understood in more than one way.” For example, it’s when a word, phrase, or situation has multiple possible meanings, creating uncertainty about the true intention or message.
One form of ambiguity is moral ambiguity, which can be described as an ethical dilemma, a grey area, or a point of moral complexity. It is situation where it is difficult to determine what is the right or wrong path to choose.
In the business world, ambiguity refers to a situation in which it is difficult to make decisions or predictions due to a lack of, or conflicting information. In the world of leadership, this often translates into strategic ambiguity or strategic uncertainty, namely a situation where it is difficult to discern which is the right path to take given the lack of, or conflicting information.
In times of ambiguity, Kevin Cashman in his book, The Pause Principle: Step Back to Lead Forward (Berrett-Koehler, 2012), writes “All too often, we allow ourselves to be carried away by our busy-ness. We are too hyperactive, too reactive to even notice the hidden value-creating dynamics waiting just under the surface within us and around us. Tethered to our smartphones, we are too caught up and distracted to take the time necessary to sort through complexity or to locate submerged purpose. In our urgent rush to get ‘there,’ we are going everywhere but being nowhere. Far too busy managing with transitive speed, we rarely step back to lead with transformative significance.”
Cashman also reminds us of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: As activity lessens, order increases. Therefore, he recommends we activate The Pause Principle, which “is the conscious, intentional process of stepping back, within ourselves and outside ourselves, to lead forward with greater authenticity, purpose, and contribution.” As he continues, “The greater the complexity, the deeper the reflective pause required to convert the complex and ambiguous to the clear and meaningful. Pause helps us to move from the transitive or hyperactive to the transformative.”
Margaret Wheatley understands this perspective when she wrote, “Thinking is the place where intelligent actions begin. We pause long enough to look more carefully at a situation, to see more of its character, to think about why it’s happening, to notice how it’s affecting us and others.”
From my experience and observations, effective leaders pause and hold ambiguity in dialogue. This choice makes a profound difference on many levels within the leader and the organization. But to grasp this choice, we need to unpack the word dialogue and understand it’s meaning in greater detail.
Dialogue originates from the Greek word dialogs, which is the combination of dia meaning “through or between,” and logos meaning “word or speech.” It literally means a flow of meaning through or between words and people. Next, there are two types of dialogue, namely the outer form between two or more people, and the inner dialogue with oneself. Both forms of dialogue revolve around discovering a flow of meaning, i.e. an on-going and ever-evolving understanding of meaning and clarity.
When effective leaders pause and hold ambiguity in dialogue, I am reminded of the late Stephen Covey and his book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (Free Press, 1989). In it, Covey explains the choice between focusing on the circle of concern vs. the circle of influence. The circle of concern included everything that concerned an individual, even if they had little or no control over it. The circle of influence, on the other hand, encompassed all the things one could directly influence or impact, even if they did not have complete control. Covey advocated for the reader to shift their focus from their circle of concern to their circle of influence in order to take steps that could make a positive difference in their life and in the lives of others.
Upon reflection, during times of ambiguity and uncertainty, I think we first need to focus on creating, and then being in a circle of reflection and dialogue before we focus on our circle of influence. The goal is to start from a place of meaning and clarity before action rather than to attempt, and hope to discover clarity and meaning only through action.
Within this unique circle, we need to pause and look at things, issues, or problems from multiple angles and various perspectives. We also need to seek out the wise counsel of others, and to listen deeply to their insights, lessons learned, and perspective. For it is the combination of reflection and dialogue that will lead us to actions that are mission-driven, vision-led, and values-based.
Given the current lack of information, and/or conflicting information plus the ongoing uncertainty about the intentions of others, near and far, ambiguity and uncertainty will continue to create dynamic complexity. Our choice as leaders is to remember and pause, reflect, and dialogue, internally and externally, in order to make thoughtful choices rather than reactive choices. As Lisa Miller, PhD writes, “… outward goals are no substitute for larger meaning and purpose.” And now is the time to discover or recover larger meaning and purpose, internally and externally, in order to navigate well through ambiguity.
© Geery Howe 2026