I’ve struggled with the idea of transparency in decision making. Of course, I want people who are impacted by my decisions to understand how they are made.
But not too much. To take a hypothetical, does my team really need to know that I appointed Bob as project manager for the Gibson Initiative because Mary screwed up her last role leading a project? And is important to make available the incredibly complex spreadsheet that helped drive what projects we will fund in FY’10?
So I had an a-ha! moment as I read John Maeda’s excellent post on Harvard Business Publishing about the difference between transparency and clarity. He says:
“Transparency and clarity are two completely different things, and in many cases complete clarity should be a leader’s goal rather than complete transparency.”
The reason: transparency, or access to facts, can lead to selective interpretation. “There is clearly a wide gulf between having access to the facts themselves and having access to an understanding of the facts,” Maeda says.
But achieving clarity with your constituents is a tricky job. Social media helps, but a good old fashioned stand-up presentation is even more valuable. Read his post for more tips on creating and communicating clarity.
Maeda is the President of the Rhode Island School of Design, but also one of the world’s foremost graphic designers. See him in action at a very interesting and funny presentation at the TED conference:
