Andrew Creed and Ambika Zutshi

Transparency: shifting lines in the sand

The convergence of the Internet and personal communication devices has resulted in exponential activity increases in interpersonal communication opportunities within the workplace (Palackal et al., 2011; Yoo, 2011). Applications such as Twitter, Yammer and Facebook have increasingly blurred the boundaries between personal and professional lives (Marwick and Boyd, 2011; Overbaugh, 2011). Nowadays, work can intrude at home, and home life more easily interrupts a person at work. In addition, social media encourages the sharing of personal information, from sensitive documents, names and numbers to recordings, photos and videos, all of which can be posted expeditiously and very publicly on the Internet. It is appropriate, therefore, to ask whether information of this nature should in fact go public. Clearly, there are situations in which it is individually, socially, politically and strategically better to keep some information private. It is noteworthy that transparency, when applied as a management approach, and without careful consideration, can at times compromise the safety and security of people and organisations (Morozov, 2011; Veil et al., 2011). Amidst all of these considerations, the aim of this chapter is to explore key aspects of the dividing line between privacy and transparency, as well as to recommend some approaches that can minimise harm, and maximise the benefits of social media, to balance organisational and individual interests.

Transparency is at heart a communication policy that, from our perspective, rests upon a balanced interplay between openness versus trust in relationships. In professional settings at work, there needs to be awareness of the ideas and activities between workers involved, but not so much as to breach the notional boundaries of privacy, professionalism and candour that are necessary to foster respect among people. Trust is defined as ‘one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another, as is based on the confidence that the latter party is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest and open’ (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2000:552). In this definition, openness is just one aspect of trust. In the workplace, trust translates into the understanding by one person that their collaborator has the capability to achieve key outcomes. This understanding depends upon an acceptance that the other person completing the task has the capability to undertake, and successfully finish, the task at hand. In addition to capability, trust is another attribute required between the two parties. One way to foster trust is through open communication, but not necessarily in an indiscriminate stream of communication online all day.

Gaining glimpses of a collaborator’s inner workings are part of trust building; nevertheless, we need to remember that many aspects of work colleagues are private and permanently unknown. So, while a certain level of transparency is helpful, there is a boundary that requires protection against the mere curiosity of colleagues wanting to have open knowledge of everything that is going on. Of course, the context of the relationship plays a role. For example, in the business or fiduciary sense, the managers of other people’s property have a duty to be open and transparent about the numerical facts. Transparency in this case is promoted as a legitimate policy, one with the intention of ensuring that no dishonesty can occur in relation to decisions about potential personal gain in relation to organisational resources (Haufler, 2010). But consider a healthcare organisation that is in control of people’s medical records, and responding to various stakeholders’ requests for access to that information, such as the local doctor, the patient themselves or their immediate family members; in each case, the boundaries of transparency are quite different. In such instances, issues of privacy and compliance with the law tend to dictate the final outcomes because the opposite could lead to penalties for the person releasing the information.

In another example, Wikileaks has exposed the differentials in people’s expectations about how transparent some departments of governments should be with the information they hold about individuals and organisations (Gardels, 2011). Here, consider the broad, positive, social and legal support given to whistleblowers in the industry, as compared with the critique rained upon the Wikileaks approach to exposing organisational (governmental) secrets (Lewis, 2011). Since individuals and organisations have widely divergent social objectives, it is not possible to agree with the catch-all claims by some social media commentators that ‘Privacy is dead!’ (Eriksson, 2011:81; Thierer, 2011). Hence, some questions arise, such as:

The answers to such questions depend upon a concise understanding of the nature of transparency, and a consideration of its positive and negative elements, all of which is overviewed in the following sections of this chapter. Unless otherwise stated, please note that the concepts of transparency and privacy in this chapter are mentioned in the context of work or professional settings.

The positive and negative continuum of transparency

Transparency is broadly defined and analysed in organisational contexts, especially as corporate collapses, breaches of fiduciary trust and large economic events, such as the global financial crisis, have unfolded (Roth, 2009; Crotty, 2011). Most researchers focusing upon transparency begin with a simple dictionary definition, then move to more detailed contextual alignment. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary, quoted in Westphal (1986:312), defines transparency as ‘having the property of transmitting light so as to render bodies lying beyond it completely visible, so that it can be seen through’. In this chapter, some qualification of that definition must occur, with this depending on which resources a reader might be considering. For example, finance, production data, staffing information, strategic planning and other variants require different levels of ‘visibility’ for different audiences. Further to this, the effects resulting from certain types of people knowing particular types of information in an organisation can either be helpful or harmful to individuals or the organisation overall.

While the good effects of transparency in organisations in relation to financial management and information disclosure are well documented (Williams, 2005; Bandsuch et al., 2008; Williams, 2008), limited attention is given in that literature to the possible downside of being transparent (Pratt, 2005; Ball, 2009). In the field of corporate governance, through the notion of privacy, some of the negative aspects of transparency are considered. Nonetheless, emphasis on the notion of freedom of information highlights that the benefits of transparency often outweigh the remnant concerns that people may have about the loss of privacy (Rodan, 2000). It is our view that both the good (positive) and the bad (negative) aspects of transparency need a clearer distinction. There is no denying that transparency is here to stay and, hence, it is imperative for managers to consider the ramifications of implementing and reinforcing transparency policies and initiatives in their organisations. As information technology advances, so too do the opportunities for information transparency through access to copied, or stored, data increase. These then place a further imperative on managers to act appropriately in the interests of their organisations, as well as each group of stakeholders. We need to remember that the actions of managers at various levels, in addition to their peers and subordinates, all contribute towards the ethical culture of an organisation.

Positive transparency is when information disclosure leads to the better functioning of an organisation that benefits all stakeholders equitably. In effect, positive transparency operates on the principle of mutual knowledge (Lee, 2001) and is essentially a post-modern approach to ensure that patterns of power, as well as control over knowledge, do not become entrenched and abusive (Koall, 2011). It is quite common, however, for people in organisations to have mutual knowledge of a type that, in some way, diminishes the status of one or more of the people who are subjects of the knowledge (Braxton, 2010). For instance, when information is spread that harms or unfairly embarrasses individuals, we have negative transparency. This is a situation that may lead to shame and humiliation, plus instances of inequity and various other degrees of abuses of power (Namie and Namie, 2011). The useful distinction between positive and negative outcomes of information disclosure is illustrated in Figure 8.1. It is a timely reminder, as information-sharing tools continue to fill our organisational and private lives, that both the advantages and the pitfalls of transparency policies and practices must be considered.

A feature of Figure 8.1 is that some elements of every person are always held outside of the shared field of transparency. The outer crescents of each circle denote these mutually exclusive realms. Personal information that, possibly, is perceived as socially embarrassing is always guarded by people. In essence, there is a personal and private boundary to every individual that is probably best left unravelled by any policy of transparency.

Consider that negative transparency, as it is portrayed on the right side of the top of Figure 8.1, has a distorting effect on the individual, mainly when privacy is breached or when power-control relationships are imbalanced. The person who has certain private information exposed will suffer embarrassment, or a taint to their reputation. A complication comes when the information that is exposed is distorted and misrepresentative of what is happening in reality. So, not only can true and sensitive private information be exposed in negative transparency situations, but false information can also be circulated, thus leading to embarrassment. The elliptical shape of Person A in Figure 8.1 portrays the distortion of shame, embarrassment or discrimination that comes from negative transparency. The relationship effectively drags Person A from the left to the right of the continuum. It reveals the natural desire of a shamed or embarrassed individual to return to a more positive state. In addition, the people enmeshed in the negative transparency situation may or may not be conscious of what is happening, effectively suggesting that intentional as well as unintentional harm can result. Person A’s inner balance can be disturbed with or without them realising, and Person B can either consciously or accidentally expose sensitive information that causes the problem.

The bottom right of Figure 8.1 displays the positive aspects of transparency and helps explain why some managers have sought to implement policies supportive of greater transparency. There are many good economic and relational reasons why democratic, open, fair, current, equitable and balanced communication should be encouraged in all kinds of organisations. The trouble is that, without thoughtfulness, transparency can become an ethically slippery slope (Krotosky, 2010; Rosenberg, 2010; Bannister and Connolly, 2011). The person initiating a tactic of transparency must bear in mind the motives that lead to the information being exposed, the truthfulness of the information and the potential for embarrassing another person(s). Intentional embarrassment is among the purposes of the principle of fiduciary transparency. For instance, it is the fear of embarrassment and socio-legal reprimands that discourages people from defrauding an organisation. But when the power offered by the opportunity to intentionally embarrass seduces an individual to apply it indiscriminately and dishonestly to someone they actively dislike or, unthinkingly, to someone who is not perceived to be socially significant, a situation of negative transparency will occur. Racism, sexism, ageism and other kinds of discrimination in social settings are variations of negative transparency, especially via the misrepresentation of personal information that normally should have no relevance to organisational or other kinds of relationships (Epstein, 2008). This is the territory in which managers find themselves when a seemingly innocuous policy is implemented that has the focus of making them more transparent with their employees, or other stakeholders. Yes, decisions and actions that lead to positive transparency are to be applauded, but negative transparency is to be avoided. This is why an understanding of the subtle differences in the concepts is important. When the development of new, powerful communication applications are added to the mix, we have an especially challenging set of circumstances to consider. For instance, race- or gender-specific communications, trade secrets, strategic knowledge and sensitive financial data might all be spread much further than anticipated through websites and messaging technologies if users are not very careful in following correct protocols.

Transparency as control through social media

Transparency is justified in organisations as a way of encouraging equity and fair resource allocation. But that same transparency can be turned upon staff as a mechanism of control and strategic embarrassment that can lead to the same kinds of inequities and unfairness it was intended to avoid. Email circulations, Facebook, Twitter, blog postings and mass media exposures can all be widely used as control devices, but the question is: do they achieve much more than satisfying the need of people to engage in gossip (and pursue darker motives), or as an aspect of social control?

Managers and colleagues do need to consider that gossip has the potential to hurt, rather than help, individuals and the organisation. There is anecdotal and case-based evidence of embarrassing gossip in many workplaces that (unintentionally or purposefully) is directed toward controlling the behaviour of people (Sutton, 2010; Seidler, 2011). When embarrassing gossip is spread using the powerful magnifying effects of social media, the most insidious kind of bullying can emerge. People’s words and reactions can be fanned and inflamed by social media, in addition to the usual communication modes of meetings, corridor discussions and drinks after work. Accordingly, there are many opportunities for intentional and accidental public humiliation. Recently, in higher education workplaces, this practice has been referred to as ‘academic mobbing’ (Leymann, 1996; Tigrel and Kokalan, 2009; Khoo, 2010), and the negative health effects are also noted. Wider studies of mobbing, or bullying, in the workplace arrive at similar conclusions about health issues (Rodríguez-Carballeira et al., 2010; Soylu, 2011; Hershcovis, 2011). With social media now in the mix, such mobbing can become more pervasive.

Consider this scenario: a group of academics teaching an online subject communicate with each other regularly by email and teleconferencing. In addition, their student engagement activities are mutually observable via the online learning management system through a collection of social media tools, including discussion threads, blogs, wikis and web conferencing applications. One day, the team leader asks members of the teaching team to complete a data-gathering task that is not core to the teaching policies of the associated faculty or school. One member of the team does not complete the task within the time that it is requested by the leader, although it is completed later after the core teaching duties are finalised. Subsequently, the team leader becomes frustrated with that particular team member for not doing as told and when told (regardless of the fact that key objectives and policies are still met subsequently). Without discussing the reasoning behind the delay directly with the team member, the leader circulates an email stating the feeling of frustration to a number of senior managers in the school.

Discussion thread postings are also made by the team leader inside the learning management system, with this implying to students that the team member is not undertaking their required duties. All of this activity by the leader makes an internal team issue a matter of strategic embarrassment for the team member in the eyes of the team, the senior managers and the students. The matter is also not resolved in an open manner by the senior people who are copied on the email. Requests by the affected team member to senior managers for negotiation assistance are left unanswered.

The abovementioned scenario describes behaviour and outcomes that are adapted from a real experience and shows how negative transparency, as an effort to control someone, was generated by the team leader’s actions. Note that the team member was in a subordinate position, and that the associated power relationships were asymmetrical. Furthermore, the team leader was a senior staff member, and the aforementioned email was copied to other managers who outranked the team member and leader, respectively. When students were also involved in the miscommunication, the feelings of humiliation for the team member became worse. A perception of mobbing was generated and feelings of uncertainty, or being scrutinised for any possible slip-up in future work, filled the team member’s mind in the months that followed. What made this situation more stressful and increasingly complicated was that necessary discussion between the team member and the head of the school occurred two months after the initial incident.

From our perspective, this situation could have been turned around at three key points.

The role of civility and etiquette

As is increasingly evident, bullying, mobbing and discrimination are dramatic examples of the effects of negative transparency. However, there is a more subtle disruption in the transparency continuum that comes from a lack of civility and etiquette in communications that spreads outward and onward, just like a ripple in a pond (Mullen et al., 2011). Now, with emoticons as well as SMS and Twitter abbreviations proliferating in online language, the potential has grown for breaches of etiquette and misinterpretation leading to misunderstandings of communication intentions (Farina and Lyddy, 2011; Thurlow and Mroczek, 2011). Obviously, there are diverse perceptions as to what should be civil behaviour and proper approaches to communication at work (Bryant and Sias, 2011). In this context, give thought to cultural differences, in addition to variations in socialised expectations and behaviours, which are common in workplaces (Figiel, 2011; Witte, 2011). Nevertheless, communication policies can be generated that explicitly define the range of behaviours, words and activities that would constitute appropriate etiquette in various media. For instance, workplaces have been quick to recognise the social changes happening through online applications, such as Facebook and Twitter, but workplaces have been limited in the extent of their associated response. Policy initiatives related to social media usage have tended to be reactive to perceived breaches of privacy, or are a response to claims of bullying or discrimination among some staff members (IBM, 2011). Unfortunately (and commonly), such policies are ignored, or not prioritised. For example, it can seem pedantic for a manager to insist on everybody in their area of responsibility being trained in how to compose electronic messages in a certain style; so much depends on the literacy, mood and professionalism of a communicator. Yet, practically, so little can be done to motivate diligent attention to foster continuous improvement of communication styles and habits.

The social media companies themselves are having to respond to community feedback on issues of etiquette and other genuine concerns linked with privacy versus transparency. Facebook, for instance, introduced a real-time ticker in 2011 that shows what friends are currently talking about and, as a direct result, there was an instant reaction as people realised that they might have lost a little control over how they communicated in their online space (Halliday, 2011). Also, the sensitivities of making changes to social media are closely allied with the usual dynamics of human relationships. Users of social media, therefore, like to have clarity and transparency offered by service providers, but not at the expense of personal control and privacy. Nevertheless, by no account are we dismissing the use of social media to communicate, as this would be unrealistic and unachievable in this digital age. However, we urge the users of social media to be aware of the benefits and challenges from our perspective for organisations and individuals as highlighted in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1

Benefits and challenges of transparency via social media

Positive changes associated with social media	Challenges for organisations and individuals with social media
Increased awareness and facilitation of grass-roots democracy on important social issues	Instant politicisation of issues that become transparent and are discussed through the networks
Speeding up of processes possibly leading to better justice in some individual and group disputes	Swift changes to the power balances in organisations leading to instability and uncertainty over leadership and tenure Deluge of information, much of it potentially irrelevant or distracting from making good decisions
More informed decision making	Proliferation of opportunities to invoke negative transparency to marginalise and discriminate against individuals
Instant updates on matter significant to individual	Relative ease of slipping into breaches of communication etiquette
Connectivity and networks across the globe	Potential of misunderstandings due to lack of body language
Receiving feedback from people and your discipline irrespective of geographical and time boundaries	Temptation to reply reactively to a message without being reflective on the content or control of emotions Distraction from core work responsibility to check for updates across various social mediums such as Facebook and LinkedIn

Source: Authors’ own composition

As social media proliferates, a number of the resultant disadvantages have been overlooked or misinterpreted. The benefits are strong enough to encourage proponents to continue the spread of the technology. However, there is enough history available at present to demonstrate the need for caution, as the boundaries between positive and negative transparency have become more fluid.

Transparency tensions in the organisational social network: The next step

Information contains power of different polarities. Positive transparency is a policy that seeks to balance informational and positional power. In comparison, negative transparency tends to put individuals and organisations off-balance on the basis of so-called ‘dirt’, or distorted innuendo. Broadly, it can be understood that a political scene emerges out of these tensions (Shirky, 2011). For instance, the traditional status divide between management and workers, in part, is defined by the level of access to information and the extent of any transparency. Often, workers’ unions have campaigned for greater management transparency as part of the fight against various inequalities in workplaces and other business settings. Conversely, unions have also come under criticism for not being transparent enough about their own activities. In the analysis of the decline of traditional unionism in countries such as Australia, it is noted that the need for people to band together in order to push back against oppressive situations is not diminished and, in fact, it is through social media networks that this need is arguably finding fresh expression. People will email, text and tweet readily about their abusive boss. Yet these folk are more reticent about invoking action through a traditional union that is perceived to be increasingly expensive, slow to respond to individual situations and focused on larger political negotiations that are often well beyond immediate organisational concerns. Remarkably, there have also been cases of management choosing to use Facebook to sack employees, rather than handle the matter person to person (Gettler, 2010).

As presented in Figure 8.1, positive transparency is an expression of balanced mutual knowledge, as forms the basis of the sorts of revolutions that improve organisational functioning. In this regard, social media networks are found to be facilitative of positive transparency and have been identified as possibly crucial in recent political upheavals at the country level, such as during the Arab Spring (Harb, 2011; Khondker, 2011; Tapas, 2011). When everybody in a social network begins to know that everybody else agrees with their point of view (for instance, that a dictator should be deposed), this new transparency diminishes the fear that would otherwise serve to prevent any possible revolution. The same mechanism applies at the organisational level. Leadership of an organisation depends upon follower support; positive transparency, therefore, is an important way to identify the levels of support circulating through the network of communications. The ‘elephant in the room’ for leaders is how to handle negative transparency if, and when, it emerges. The social network can just as easily connect everybody in an organisation through private and innuendo-based knowledge that upsets any existing power balance and, thereby, can spark a revolution that need not happen. Intentional debasing of people, or just clumsy, inaccurate undermining, can occur through negative transparency. Abuses of power are still very possible and can in fact be magnified through new media, thus making the basic principle of a worker union still highly relevant. But the social mechanism for how people come together to communicate has changed irrevocably.

While proponents of social media technology readily point to the positive benefits of changes being wrought by the proliferating networked applications of Twitter, Facebook, Google + and more, it is timely to highlight the potential downside. Organisations and individuals might need technological change and social innovation to remain competitive and sustainable; still, the reality of change is closely allied with power bases and political tensions. Harm to individuals and groups can just as easily be the result, as can expected improvement. The emergence of social media guidelines and similar communication policies is indicative of the growing awareness of the possible abuses that can be promulgated through social media. Accordingly, more empirical research is required across different sectors and organisational sizes to identify if, and how, various organisations have accepted and responded to the new forms of social media in order to communicate effectively and appropriately with their employees and other stakeholders. In addition, consideration must be given where any necessary bans are put in place to restrict the use of workplace assets and resources (including access to the Internet) as relate to social media usage by employees. The penalties implemented in the latter case also need to be publicised and further discussed, especially in light of our next generation of employees who have been born and brought up in the digital age, with all the attitudes toward transparency and online behaviour that this entails.

References