I have done a lot of work on transparency with both non-profits and corporates, especially when related to strategic decisions, bad news, M&A and social media.

Non-transparency implies you're hiding something. In most cases, leaders and managers believe non-transparency gives them an edge in negotiation / makes them more irreplaceable or that it will avoid conflict / problems.

The impact of Non-Transparency include what happens when the truth is discovered. Sometimes before the deal is made, sometimes after.

Other impacts are on the overall atmosphere of the company and relations to other colleagues / business partners / clients: people know there is non-transparency because they know the workplace is not fully transparent. This increases stress, tension, decreases openness of employees, reduces their loyalty, can affect their work ethics, etc.

On the individual who has to conceal the truth, there is also a psychological and physiological impact. If an individual has to hold on to many "non-transparent truths", the physiological impact on the body can lead to chronic pains and illnesses (especially back and eye pains, stomach problems and even heart diseases in the most serious cases).

I do not condemn non-transparency because it can be necessary in specific situations.

The questions you may want to ask yourself are:

1. What is the purpose of non-transparency?
2. What are the alternative solutions to non-transparency?
3. What is the worst that can happen with transparency?
4. What are we worried will actually happen? Why do we think this will happen?
5. What does the ideal situation look like?
6. What do we want to achieve?

If you want to explore non-transparency within your leadership or company, we can arrange a call to guide you in deciding whether it is the best solution in the situation you're in.

There are some fabulous examples of organizations that have tested different forms of transparency, with the pros and cons, which I will happily share with you.

Is this any useful?