Transparency in Leadership: Is More Always Better?
Is transparency a good thing?
Obviously, to a certain degree it is, but there’s a line somewhere.
I think transparency is a double-edged sword; it cuts both ways.
Some is great. But too much? well, not so much.
Let’s unpack this:
I think most of us would agree with the statement: “the more information, the better.”
But consider this.
I’ve talked with some people who would say:
“Give me all of the context. I work better when I know what the worst-case scenario is.”
But I’ve also worked with people who would say:
“I’d prefer not to know. You worry about that stuff, let me get on with what I need to do. I work better when I’m not distracted.”
Is one of those perspectives right or wrong?
I don’t think so. I think they’re just different.
Let’s look at it on a spectrum:
Two questions to ponder:
Where do you naturally sit on this line when sharing information?
and where do you prefer to sit on this line when receiving information?
Here’s what I’ve learned about myself. When sharing: I generally default to: more transparency is better.
When receiving; I trust my boss to give me the information I need to do my job and then I’m perfectly happy functioning with the ambiguity. To be fair, it’s a little different now as a CEO, but I do know that I’m quite content without all the details and information at hand.
When it comes to sharing, transparently (see what I did there?) this approach has bit me in the butt a few times where I’ve over-shared when I shouldn’t have.
As a leader, the downside of over-sharing is that you’re only a few steps away from a fear-mongering culture, creating anxiety when you shouldn’t.
I love this perspective from Bob Iger (Disney CEO).
“Being and staying positive is one of the most important qualities a leader can have.
If you walk up and down the hall constantly telling people 'The sky is falling,' a sense of doom and gloom will, over time, permeate the company. You can't communicate pessimism to the people around you. It's ruinous to morale.
The bottom line is that no one wants to follow a pessimist. Optimism is about believing in yourself and your employees' abilities.”
A recent case study of where this went really poorly was the collapse of SVB (Silicon Valley Bank)
Here’s some commentary on it:
The CEO of SVB said on Wednesday when he revealed the equity issuance and sale of securities at a loss “My ask is to stay calm because that’s what is important. We have been long-term supporters of you – the last thing we need you to do is panic.”
Rule #1 of the Bank CEO Club is we don’t use the word “panic”. Ever. If I were a customer, I would be thinking to myself “well, I wasn’t panicking before, but now maybe I should be.” SVB could also have timed the announcements better and lined up the financing before announcing they needed cash.
In the end, vulnerability builds trust. But 100% vulnerability with no filter can destroy morale.
We want our leaders to be vulnerable, sure, but we also have to be motivated to follow them into battle.
Practically, my co-founder and I call it the ‘percentage of vulnerability’ approach. It looks something like this:
I’m 100% vulnerable with my wife.
I’m 95% vulnerable with my leader.
I’m 90% vulnerable with my leadership team.
And I’m about 80% vulnerable with the wider company.
That scale may differ depending on the season but it’s been a helpful framework for me.
Musings:
Where do you sit on the scale of sharing and receiving?
What information are you lacking from your leader?
And what information do you not what to hear?
Thanks for reading,
MT