Transparency is at once an empty promise, a heavenly ideal and a meaningless bit of modern communication jargon that we'll all one day fondly associate with the 2000s the way we associate "throughput" with the 1970s, "total quality" with the 1980s and "empowerment" with the 1990s.
And yet, there's something permanent about it: If I had to write for the time capsule an essay titled, "What Transparency Means to Me," I would write about my relationship with the trade association for communicators, the International Association for Business Communicators.
Fifteen years ago, IABC was a directory and a magazine and a conference and a headquarters office that existed only in my imagination. The only person I really knew there was Gloria Gordon the IABC warhorse, who edited the magazine. She couldn't hide; she was right there on the masthead. So they also made her the director of public relations. She could be reached through the switchboard, which I remember by rote to this day: 415-433-3400. (It has since changed.)
Now, the entire IABC leadership team is not only known to me, but every senior leader has a blog; so does IABC's paid president, Julie Freeman. And its volunteer chair, Barbara Gibson, is a blogging fool. (It was she who suggested that IABC's senior staff start blogs, senior VP of education Chris Grossgart tells me.)
What difference does this really make in terms of my relationship with IABC? It means that, in order to approach the organization as a reporter or as a business partner, I don't have to have covered it for 15 years to be able to ID some of the players. It means I can assess their personalities and even know a little about what's been on their minds lately before I start randomly calling the switchboard. It means I don't have to be gregarious in order to reach them.
It's not transparency at all, really. Transparency would imply that I know everything I want to know about IABC and its inner workings and all the decisions its leaders make, whenever I want to know it. It's really just accessibility. Which isn't revolutionary or sexy.
But this accessibility seems permanent to me, in IABC and in almost all other organizations, and it seems real and quantifiable. Which is more than you can say about "transparency."
What, in practical terms, does "transparency" mean to you? Anything? Or everything?
As the co-author of a book on transparency that just came out last week (“Tactical Transparency”), I have to believe you’re making more out of the notion of transparency than is necessary. Dan Tapscott and David Ticoll, in their book, “The Naked Corporation,” describe it like this: “the accessibility of information to stakeholders of institutions, regarding matters that affect their interests.”
At its core, transparency is the oppose of opacity, which is an increasingly bad ideas as a business strategy given the microscope under which most organizations find themselves. In our book, John C. Havens and I expand the definition to address the accessibility of organizational representatives to present information. Specifically, we define transparency as the degree to which an organization shares its business strategy, practices, values, culture and processes by making appropriate information available through accessible leaders and employees.
Hardly an empty promise if an organization is committed to keeping it. More and more organizations are recognizing that, given the unprecedented scrutiny they face, committing to transparency is in their own self-interest.
Transparency does not mean providing all information about everything. There’s plenty of information that needs to remain confidential like, for instance, material you’ve agreed to keep quiet in confidentiality agreements with partners. There’s employee health information, which if exposed will get you fined.
I’ll be happy to send you a copy of the book, David. You won’t even have to review it.
Sounds like I’ve just earned myself a review copy of that book, doesn’t it peeps?
David:
Can I have Shel’s book when you’re done with it? And Roger’s, too, for that matter? Since you seem to be scamming all the review copies, it’s only fair that you share them.
Steve C.
Steve, I’ll trade you for the 15 Mencken and HST books you owe me. Dig?
Never mind.
Now see, THAT’S some transparency.
Hi David, good to hear you feel IABC is more accessible these days. I feel like we’re making progress, and I certainly feel much better connected to members all over the world than I did before. Actually, though, I think I’m becoming more of a Twittering fool than blogging one. Cheers! – Barb
Interesting that you wrote about IABC in “What Transparency Means to Me.” I don’t get it regarding IABC. (I’m a long-time IABC member–and have maintained my membership even after being referred to as an “HR professional” in the monthly magazine a couple of years ago.)
I do believe transparency is important in today’s business environment,as explained by the authors of The Naked Corporation and Shel’s new book. Also, the Arthur W. Page Society report, The Authentic Enterprise, from last year has some insightful comments on the topic. Transparency is much more than sharing fluff stuff; it’s about talking about what you do and how you do it, and being open and consistent with both internal and external stakeholders.
Well, Liz, I understand your consternation about being referred to as an “HR professional.” Them’s fightin’ words.
“Transparency is much more than sharing fluff stuff; it’s about talking about what you do and how you do it, and being open and consistent with both internal and external stakeholders.”
And what organization is the model IABC should follow in this area? What “authentic enterprise” could we we hold up against IABC and find IABC wanting?