Thinking about Ethics and Transparency

I have been doing some more thinking about ethics and transparency, and I'd like to share some of my thoughts with you in the hope that you will respond with your ideas.  My basic premise is:

...that truth and transparency are, in fact, two very different things, and that transparency needs to be pulled apart from truth and examined on its own merits....

Wikipedia has a good working definition of transparency. Here’s the kicker: “In government, politics, ethics, business, management, law, economics, sociology, etc., transparency is the opposite of privacy; an activity is transparent if all information about it is open and freely available.”

Let’s repeat: “Transparency is the opposite of privacy.” Of course, you can’t say that about truth, which drives home the difference between truth and transparency. Truth doesn’t require that “all information…is open and freely available.” It only requires that the information that is presented is honest and accurate. And that gap between the information that is presented and making all information available ... [has resulted in charges of unethical behavior].”

The conflation of truth and transparency is therefore a problem...

I think we need to define some basic guidelines of how to bridge that gap in the face of the new realities of participatory communications (consumer-generated media).  I'd like to hear from you as to what you think some of the challenges are and/or how you are trying to solve this.  Or, if you think I am totally off-base, please let me know why you think so.  I look forward to hearing from you; just leave your comments below or contact me at ealbrycht [at] gmail [dot] com.

Comments

[Jim Durbin]

Elizabeth - it is difficult, but the difference for me is truth is about facts, and transparency is about the process.

The key to blogs is they speak of a process of transparency that lets the consumer/client/vendor/employee know that there is a voice that can be used to explain what is going on.

Full openness is truthful, but suicidal. No one expects companies to show evey bit of their profit structure (competitive intelligence can be concealed, but being open to addressing concerns allows companies to 1) be aware of concerns that may not make it through layers of management and 2) address concerns in an open, non-press release way.

Blogs allow companies to pariticipate in the conversation that is going on about them. Having a blog is proof of a willingness to be transparent. Telling the truth is only part of that process. Having people believe you because they trust your blogger is the other part.

[Anne Stanton]

You make an excellent point and might I add that truth is sometimes misleading. There is a real difference between a fact and truth for instance because one persons truth might not be anothers.. Perception colors our world more than we care to remember on a regular basis.

[Jeremy Wright]

Elizabeth, it took me a while, but I did write about this (it's been sitting bookmarked, waiting for time to write about it, since the day you wrote it): http://blogmarketingbook.com/is-transparency-worthwhile/.

If you want, feel free to include this in the next NewComm newsletter as well :)

[allan]

I think the bridging concept you may be looking for is reputation.

I am more likely to do business with folks I trust, or that have been referred to me as trustworthy.

Transparency is like a contract, if a knave is the counter party, the results will still be unpleasant.

[Ariful Anam]

You make an excellent point and might I add that truth is sometimes misleading. There is a real difference between a fact and truth for instance because one persons truth might not be anothers.. Perception colors our world more than we care to remember on a regular basis.

Forex Blog | Learn Forex | Download DXTraining Papers