Lately, we hear a great deal about the value of radical transparency. Consultants argue that leaders need to share information broadly with members of their organization. They argue that radical transparency builds buy-in, trust, and commitment. Sounds sensible, right? Is there a downside though? What risks does this approach create?
Martin Gutmann and Antoni Lacinai examine this issue in a new Fast Company article. They contend that transparency only works when coupled with clarity. They write:
Transparency in a company setting typically means more dashboards, more all-hands, and more context. It feels responsible—especially in uncertain moments—because it signals you aren’t hiding anything. But facts don’t organize themselves. People still have to decide what matters, what they need to ignore, and what to do next. When leaders don’t provide that structure, they leave teams confused, and teams will fill in the blanks with rumor and gossip. In the end, this leads to more insecurity and more internal politics.
Gutmann and Lacinai argue that leaders need to explain why information is important, and then they must provide clear direction to their team members. They have be wary of creating cognitive overload and overwhelming their employees with information. People need to know what the priorities are and how to interpret key data.
For me, any attempt to add clarity begins with leaders stepping into their employees' shoes. They need to try to see things from their team members' perspectives. How will they interpret information? What might confuse them? How might they be unsettled by certain data? Stepping into their shoes will help leaders frame their messages, anticipate challenges, and develop strategies for reducing stress and anxiety among workers.
No comments:
Post a Comment