When Transparency Becomes a Bad Word

Over the past week I have been in two strategy engagements where, in the process of setting goals and core values, the term transparency has risen to the surface.

But not in a good way.

In one instance, upon an elder statesman raising transparency as a possible place of cultural focus for the organization, a nextgen voice at the table shared strong feelings that by needing to say the organization was going to be committed to transparency, it was inherently demonstrating it was not transparent.

In a second case, a board member queried committee and local leaders on how they viewed transparency within their organization. The conversation that followed quickly evidenced an undercurrent of potential mistrust – comment after comment expressed that transparency should mean everyone should know everything.

Inherently, when leaders raise transparency as a place of organizational priority it is because they are trying to make a commitment to culture as much as process. Just as there are other key terms that should guide how an organization operates that leadership needs to define what they mean – diversity, inclusivity, engagement, etc. – if transparency is going to be a beacon of light for an organization, rather than a problem indicator, then defining it seems like a good place to start.

While each organization should engage their own leaders and community in crafting a unique definition together, here are a few elements of what that definition could include:

1.      There will always be areas of discussion and decision that have to happen in executive session in organizational governance - where the ultimate outcomes are expressed but how they were reached remains behind closed doors. This is both to mitigate legal/fiscal risk as well as to preserve a governance environment where leaders can discuss the most difficult matters in an open and blunt format without concern that the progression of that discussion comes out as a he-said, she-said rather than a singular voice of conclusion, not traced back to individual opinions.  Transparency is the ability of leadership to recognize when these closed door moments are needed and to strive to have them only happen when needed.

2.      Transparency also requires trust from the membership that the leaders are doing the above well - and, from my perspective, is one the reasons that elections exist. If there is concern that the above is not happening to the appropriate measure, it is not surprising to see a subsequent change in leadership.

3.      Transparency can mean that in the selection and election of those leaders, that the process identifying those who will lead, who will represent the whole, is an objective one. Ultimately, is leadership selection guided by how the skills, perspectives, connections, and experience needed at that moment align with the right candidate, or is it simply a process of who you know and leaders selecting next from their inner circle?

4.      With all that said - I think transparency in leadership is something more - it is leaders actively seeking key perspectives from those they serve to then bring back and incorporate into their strategic discussions and decisions. It is the desire to lead with the membership instead of for it.

 If your organization has other aspects that they embody in an effort for ongoing transparency, please share so we can all learn from your example.

Transparency can be a strong foundation for any association – if there is clarity in what it means and if the organization executes on that definition.