Who Wants to See Clearly?
by Zoltán Dankó
Future-Proof Organization Practitioner -- Human leadership fuels high performance. If you have open mind, I help add open culture to leverage open-source - Change is risk: doing the same leads nowhere. Let's move on!
"In human relations, all prediction is connected in one way or another with the phenomenon of trust."
Paul Watzlawick
In today's world, we are frequently told that we live in a time of abundant accessible information and transparency on any possible matters. In companies, marketing and communication departments work hard to tell employees that it is their obligation to approach HR or their managers to inform them about issues openly. In our private lives, we tell our relatives to be sincere in private matters to each other.
Do we experience these rosa state of affairs? No.
We, humans, need to be stronger at not fooling ourselves. It is much easier to fake a reality we would like to be in. We must discern how our communication gets spoiled due to our extreme effort to let us believe in this fake reality. Others reinforce our beliefs as many are used to playing the same game.
Deemed transparency
As long as we live in our staged reality, this deemed transparency may work until we face an outlier interested in a different game. Deemed transparency is connected closely with lies that help uphold the fictional whereabouts. There is a simple test to detect whether we live in deemed transparency when we trap ourselves in not telling our frank opinion to someone.
Benevolent transparency
Sometimes, we consciously decide to lie in a situation because we do not want to behave rudely or harshly to someone, or we refrain from telling the truth to avoid a shock (in medical cases or deception in partnerships). The characteristic of benevolent transparency is the sign that we know the insincerity. By doing this, a time will come when we share the truth in the appropriate circumstances.
Proactive transparency
Thinking about the situation, there are cases when we decide to come forward with our sincere opinion to move the other party to behave similarly. This deed bears certain risks since we reveal our standpoint, giving the other party an advantage to copy this behavior or build counterstrategies based on the received information.
Mutual transparency
If both parties demolish the walls, they trust each other by not hiding information or opinions. Instead, they share as much information as possible to make the best decisions. This behavior bears one superior advantage: drastically reducing the sum of risks in the situation. This, however, requires a requisite in the personality. A human has to go a long road in personality development till one can reach a level where no fears dominate the aspects of the behavior. Fear is a mind-killer. In our society, it is not advisable to acknowledge our fears. Developing a mental state where we perceive our fears takes effort, but this perception helps us think and evaluate the situation.
Human life unfolds as a specific setting or derivative of the game theory. Usually, Events happen so fast that we don't detect the chain of elements. It takes much work to handle complexity. If we reflect on a situation, we can list several aspects, knowing that this is only a partial list of items. The simplest way to combat the complexity is by simplifying it. This method is used in our private life and in science, too. We hope a big deal is not fooling ourselves by disregarding aspects that fundamentally change the affairs, derailing the issue altogether.
"Our everyday, traditional ideas of reality are delusions which we spend substantial parts of our daily lives shoring up, even at the considerable risk of trying to force facts to fit our definition of reality instead of vice versa. And the most dangerous delusion is that there is only one reality."
Paul Watzlawick
In a corporate setting, what kind of reality an individual might have and, consequently, which level of transparency can emerge defines the openness of the communication. Monitoring the communication between participants gives clues to determine the score of delusion. There is a good test for the next meeting: the more least actionable and empty phrases you hear, the higher the score of the delusion might surge. Some companies create strategies in the same manner. Suppose they have one at all. The smart managers produce one, even if only a fake one. If you have a real strategy, it can be broken down into actionable items. This is only the first half of the story. The other half emerges from the measurements. What do you measure, and how do you measure? For the sake of practiced transparency, it is enough to introduce a complex KPI system to the company, which is complex enough to introduce lengthily. Still, it contains fluffy objectives that aim only at ensuring the bonuses and avoiding accountability. Colleagues realize quickly that they should not take it seriously.
We used to have company games in our childhood. We enjoyed them because we could compete and conquer the game partners. In other games, we realized that we could create alliances to enhance our power and provide delusions for the game partners that they should believe what we make them believe. Similar alliances surge in companies among managers. They know about the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of others but don't tell each other; they build on them by knowing that the other parties are aware of everyone else's weaknesses. This kind of hide-and-seek is the best way for a corporate theatre. Transparency is usually avoided since it could crush the game.
In conclusion, transparency is good if you compare what the company proclaims and what happens in its daily communication and behavior. It is your choice to decide whether to participate in the game. I know it is a serious game between life and death. Existential pressure is frequently used to temper transparency, not to overuse it in the workplace.
