The word ‘Transparency’ wins my buzzword bingo - here’s why

One of the most overused words in business has been denegrated to become meaningless

There are plenty of overused phrases in business. Some of my particular favourites include “the new normal”,”unprecedented”, “transformation”, “disruption” and, dare I say it, “unicorn”. However, this week 'transparency' has moved into the number one spot. I don’t like being overly sceptical. I'm generally an enthusiast and like to default to belief in what I am hearing. But too many leaders work this word into statements as though it is going to solve, explain or excuse the issue at hand.  

In just the last few days, the chair of the BBC has resigned despite endless reassurances that the process to select him had been “transparent”. The much debated online safety bill has reached the lords with demands technology businesses are more “transparent” but little detail of what that means and what the redress for consumers might be.The CBI promised to become more “transparent" and then suspended operations. Finally the SNP, after all its financial scandals, has told voters its “the most transparent party” as though that is reassuring.

So what should we make of all this talk about transparency and is it a useful concept at all?

I'll start with the most extreme version. Radical transparency is a management philosophy and organizational culture that emphasizes openness, honesty, and clear communication between all levels. The goal of this concept is to foster an environment where information is freely shared, decision-making processes are collaborative, and everyone has access to data and insights to make informed choices. The idea is meant to minimize hidden agendas, politicking, and information silos. Instead it is meant to promote trust, collaboration, and a shared sense of purpose. Sounds great right? But can anyone achieve it?

Bridgewater Associates, Founded by Ray Dalio, is the world's largest hedge fund.  But  the firm is equally famous for its strong commitment to ‘radical transparency’. Dalio is so enamored of the idea he even wrote a book about it called Principles.  Extreme levels of communication, a commitment to meritocracy, and a focus on learning from mistakes are all fundamental parts of the culture. Bridgewater employees are encouraged to challenge each other's ideas, regardless of rank, and to give and receive candid feedback. Meetings are recorded and shared with the entire organization to ensure that everyone has access to information and the opportunity to learn from each other. Everyone is aware of each other’s performance and even their pay and every year those employees performing in the bottom 15% are let go.

It has not, however,  always been plain sailing. There  have been public criticisms and accounts from former employees about the atmosphere. While some appreciate the firm's  meritocracy, others have found the environment too challenging and became uncomfortable. In 2016, The New York Times published an article featuring anonymous accounts from former employees who described the company as oppressive and overly intrusive. Some employees mentioned the constant surveillance through meeting recordings, and the pressure to publicly critique themselves and others as emotionally draining. In addition, Lawrence Minicone filed a lawsuit against Bridgewater, alleging that the firm had created a hostile work environment that led to his firing. Minicone claimed that he was subjected to public humiliation due to Bridgewater's unusual practices.

I think most of us can empathise with people who might not want all their work meetings recorded or their pay public, but clearly Bridgewater is doing something right as their financial results are so spectacular. For a certain personality type, it must be a  rewarding environment. 

Perhaps a slightly more moderate approach is better. Closer to home,  Monzo, a UK based digital challenger bank, has shown a commitment to transparency, albeit less ‘radical’. Monzo has been open about its company culture, values, and operations since its inception. Its management share a significant amount of information about its business operations with the public, including regular updates on its financial performance, product roadmaps, and company goals. The company also has an active community forum where customers can discuss products, ask questions, and provide feedback directly to the Monzo team.

Google has always encouraged a high level of transparency and open communication among employees.  However, in 2018, an internal discussion thread on Google+ became highly contentious and led to a public controversy which gives us another insight into the rollercoaster that transparency can be. 

The thread, dubbed "The Great Awakening," began as a discussion about diversity and inclusion supported and started by the company’s management. Eventually it devolved into a heated and very political debate. A tool that was meant to indicate the company’s open and “transparent” culture backfired.It got worse when parts of the thread were leaked to the media and drew significant public attention and scrutiny. 

All of these examples reinforce to me the challenges that come with my least favourite business word. I think good business should always be about open, direct communication and effective information sharing but the term transparency is overused.

Transparency is not an outcome. It can enable certain behaviours but it is neither a process nor a measurable goal. It needs careful definition for each situation and  careful execution to see if it is working. 

In my buzzword bingo it may give you the maximum points but in real life, it’s not going to win you many prizes.