There is a sneaky and clever way to avoid making things worse by dare to be ambiguous about one's own stance. For example, complaining to a supervisor about the poor performance, laziness, or arrogance of another department does not necessarily mean that the supervisor will proactively and promptly approach the other department with the problem in order to resolve it. It is the administrator's genuine intention to be as calm as possible. My supervisor says. I'll let them know when I get the opportunity. 、、、Such an opportunity rarely comes along. Unless the problem grows considerably, these complaints will continue to accumulate underground without being expressed.
 
Recently, when U.S. President Biden was asked about the U.S. response in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, he clearly stated  that the U.S. would "protect" them. He has made similar statements before. Why didn't they just continue with their previous stance of avoiding explicit statements and secretly supporting Taiwan in deference to the "one China" policy? A little too clear on their attitude, don't you think? It is a gaffe! If the situation were to go badly, a serious confrontation between the U.S. and China could lead to a world war. The above concerns were widespread. The U.S. took a step beyond its strategic ambiguity to avoid a head-on collision by not daring to declare its stance on the Taiwan-China issue, The U.S. was provoked by Russia's aggression in Ukraine, and will absolutely not tolerate a similar outrage in China! Thus, the event was a sign of American resoluteness.
 
I have a similar experience with such ambiguity. I had a problem and asked an expert to arbitrate for a fee. At first, the specialist responded sincerely, but as the situation gradually stalled, he became less proactive, and his attitude changed to a passive one of " waiting for time to run out while taking minimal action to avoid being complained about if asked to do so." Inaction. A short-term passivity for one's own self-preservation that does not serve the client was felt to lead to long-term stagnation in the expert's own career. The client's scathing reviews make it impossible to expand future opportunities through word-of-mouth, etc., and furthermore, if it is only safe, there is no hope for personal growth based on experience.
 
It used to be said about customer relations in companies that you should avoid talking politics with customers, or at least keep the conversation to hobbies or professional baseball. When politics is involved, "correctness" or "what we value" in other words, the now fashionable PURPOSE (meaning of existence) may clash with the customer and cause trouble. So let's keep that part vague, and let's not bump into each other in weird places, and let's make money by facilitating transactions, here's the thing. However, it has become increasingly difficult to make money these days by leaving "correctness" behind. While words such as "SDGS" and "ethical" have become popular, business is no longer viable unless the company can clearly demonstrate its " correctness" as its corporate stance and gain the approval of its clients and society. Like the "correctness" of the decision by the American company J&J to give up sales of household goods inside Russia, which is invading Ukraine, but to continue with respect to medical supplies.
 
If a company or an individual behaves a little badly, they are immediately slammed on the Internet and so on. When such a cleanliness goes too far, the good old-fashioned laxity of the Showa era is sometimes nostalgically recalled. Like the comedy that used to sell reactions to having too hot food shoved into one's mouth that would now be slammed as ethical or something. However, there is no doubt that, on the whole, the situation is better now than before. In such a situation, I think the important thing is to have one's own axis. If you have your own axis, eliminate ambiguity, and assert yourself, you will inevitably come into conflict with others. When facing an important decision, there is not much chance that everyone's judgment will be in perfect agreement. If there are two opinions, and my judgment is 51% and 49%, respectively, I want to choose the 51% side and continue to appeal simply and persistently for its correctness. I want to have the strength not to be dyed by frivolity such as "The 49% is absolutely 100% right, it's common sense!"