This is a great piece. I have been told I practice "radical transparency" in my communications, which I believe builds esprit de corps, buy-in, and creative problem-solving. This post provides great guidelines to ensure transparency is effective.
An excellent question. In the specific case I am thinking of it was expressed mostly as surprise with a dose of that's brave and good for staff. It is unusual enough to be transparent that it can be surprising, and because people are not used to it, it can feel brave. For me it is really about engaging as many people as I can in problem solving. I think that if my staff understand the problems I am trying to solve, they will help me do it and we will all do better.
It even needs to start before a decision is made. A leader being transparent about issues that should be resolved or ideas for innovation need o expose and explore them long before a decision is made. The decision is just the middle step
Letting everyone feel like they had a role in the decision that was made is critical. It is the element that they are seen as valuable, as all one team moving toward something greater. Not everyone agreeing, but everyone given the opportunity to be heard.
Sometimes things are resolved with no decision at all. Just everyone seeing that a move in a direction is needed and take the steps themselves to improving. The non-decision can be most powerful.
Very true. "Not being included" before a decision is made is the main reason people are resistant to new decisions.
However, how else should transparency be discussed? In moments where confidential decisions are not able to be public ahead of a public announcement, for instance, we can't always open a decision making process up to everyone in an organization.
While things like individual personnel decisions cannot be publicly discussed. Principles of conduct and acts should be. Then when personnel decisions are made, there is an understanding of the metrics involved in the decision, and it seems less random or subjective.
When guidelines and principles are discussed, even of P&L issues, then decisions seem understood.
That is the goal, an understanding of the basis which decisions are made. Then discussions on metrics can take place publicly. They may not agree, but framework metrics can be understood.
It may just seem like semantics, but words have intent. To me, 'clarity' has too much top-down sound to it. Many of the decisions we make are messy and best guesses on the data we have right now. Transparency is to wishy-washy and corporate jargon. For me 'open' may be closest to an intent of asking questions, even rhetorical ones, as part of a desire to get people involved, directing their decisions, influencing ours, bringing in new perspectives, and being a part of an important part of their lives. I want people I lead know they have a say, empower them to do that, and understand when they are disappointed in the decision that was made.
A belief in the leadership requires a leader's belief in the knowledge of their teammates. Whatever word is used, we must empower differing perspectives, and provide the insights on decisions made, and not made.
This is a great piece. I have been told I practice "radical transparency" in my communications, which I believe builds esprit de corps, buy-in, and creative problem-solving. This post provides great guidelines to ensure transparency is effective.
Do people deliver that observation to you as a compliment or as a critique, Sean?
I could see it coming at people from both directions.
An excellent question. In the specific case I am thinking of it was expressed mostly as surprise with a dose of that's brave and good for staff. It is unusual enough to be transparent that it can be surprising, and because people are not used to it, it can feel brave. For me it is really about engaging as many people as I can in problem solving. I think that if my staff understand the problems I am trying to solve, they will help me do it and we will all do better.
It even needs to start before a decision is made. A leader being transparent about issues that should be resolved or ideas for innovation need o expose and explore them long before a decision is made. The decision is just the middle step
Letting everyone feel like they had a role in the decision that was made is critical. It is the element that they are seen as valuable, as all one team moving toward something greater. Not everyone agreeing, but everyone given the opportunity to be heard.
Sometimes things are resolved with no decision at all. Just everyone seeing that a move in a direction is needed and take the steps themselves to improving. The non-decision can be most powerful.
Very true. "Not being included" before a decision is made is the main reason people are resistant to new decisions.
However, how else should transparency be discussed? In moments where confidential decisions are not able to be public ahead of a public announcement, for instance, we can't always open a decision making process up to everyone in an organization.
While things like individual personnel decisions cannot be publicly discussed. Principles of conduct and acts should be. Then when personnel decisions are made, there is an understanding of the metrics involved in the decision, and it seems less random or subjective.
When guidelines and principles are discussed, even of P&L issues, then decisions seem understood.
That is the goal, an understanding of the basis which decisions are made. Then discussions on metrics can take place publicly. They may not agree, but framework metrics can be understood.
We tend to push people towards the idea of clarity when others bring up transparency.
In that conversation we make a distinction between clarity over certainty.
It may just seem like semantics, but words have intent. To me, 'clarity' has too much top-down sound to it. Many of the decisions we make are messy and best guesses on the data we have right now. Transparency is to wishy-washy and corporate jargon. For me 'open' may be closest to an intent of asking questions, even rhetorical ones, as part of a desire to get people involved, directing their decisions, influencing ours, bringing in new perspectives, and being a part of an important part of their lives. I want people I lead know they have a say, empower them to do that, and understand when they are disappointed in the decision that was made.
A belief in the leadership requires a leader's belief in the knowledge of their teammates. Whatever word is used, we must empower differing perspectives, and provide the insights on decisions made, and not made.
We all learn and grow.