Damage Control
As I read Jeff’s Hunter’ Talentism post Is Transparency Worth It? I find myself wondering why, having already complained of having a headache contemplating such things, he wants to take me into migraine territory. Jeff Hunter quotes Jonathan Schwartz who is the CEO of Sun Microsystems – a blogger – noting that transparency for this CEO is not as problematic as it could be for some us given that he has little to lose with an authentically naked conversation. After all, Sun Microsystems has been in the pits of late so what does Jonathan Shwartz have to lose with his transparency blogalogue? To the contrary, Jeff Hunter argues he has much to gain. He goes on to say:
“I am still searching for an example of being “too transparent” costing someone a company, where there are many examples of lack of transparency (or “being caught in a lie”) doing a lot of damage.”
Well, needless to say, I can’t think of an example where being too transparent cost someone a company either, but then again, I do have a migraine dammit! And, as for “being caught in a lie” and “doing a lot of damage” let’s consider for a moment the scandal de jour.
Ex-U.S. Congressman Mark Foley is demonstrating the cynical side of transparency, coming to full disclosure late in the game. Mark Foley resigned his office in disgrace over his sexually explicit text messages to underage boys, confusing the roles of Congressional Page with Washington call boy. In damage control mode, Mark Foley is now being very open about his homosexuality – not a crime – and is sharing with the whole world his struggle with alcoholism, made worse by the unresolved emotional fallout resulting from his own being manhandled as a boy by a priest. Sound familiar?
In reply to Jeff Hunter’s post, one wonders how this type of “transparency” would have advanced the politician’s career had he made these revelations on his resume, before being labeled as a hypocrite and corrupt pervert. If Mark Foley had made his problems known up-front perhaps the resulting debate would have led to a more constructive outcome with the possibility of our being sympathetic, not as we are now, disgusted. But of course, that would not have been possible would it? Who wants an emotional wreck – another drunk – at the seat of government?
Being “too transparent” – drawing a parallel between the ambitions and power plays in business and politics, as illustrated here – can be a decidedly bad thing. True, coming clean after the fact makes the offense seem more pathetic than sinister and one could argue there was some authenticity in Mark Foley’s decision to resign on-the-spot, without creating an even bigger circus of the whole affair but really, at this point, who cares?
The connection here may be tenuous, I accept that. My question is, is there not a time and a place for everything, including transparency?
Similar Posts:
- Just-In-Time Posting, Jack
- My Job: A Description of Failure
- Atonement
- Jobster, Take My Breath Away
- Top Five Things Recruiters Did Pre-Internet
3 Comments, Comment or Ping
Jeff Hunter
Everything is context my friend. Only Mr. Foley knows whether the ride was worth the fall (so to speak). He wouldn’t have been elected had he been transparent (assuming of course he was even self-aware enough to understand that he was going to have problems being in a position of power around young men), but he wouldn’t be a laughing stock to the whole world either. He hid the truth (perhaps from himself as well as others) and was elevated to high station by virtue of his deception, and now is suffering a greater price than if he had never lied in the first place. Again, only he knows whether the subterfuge and subsequent pillory was worth the intervening years of glory.
Thanks again for bringing these topics up Ami.
Oct 6th, 2006
Colin Kingsbury
Transparency has long been seen as a moral good; something which makes you richer as a moral being even when it might impoverish you financially. What Schwartz and Jeff are trying to say is that in business these days it is actually a profitable strategy. The problem with all of these “crime doesn’t pay” type of arguments is that we always talk about the crooks who got caught but rarely about the ones who got away with it.
Maintaining serious and ongoing deception is ultimately expensive and likely to become more difficult, so greater transparency is probably just as well. But does that imply full disclosure, all the time?
Oct 6th, 2006
Dennis Smith
Nice post, Amitai. I liked your comments about the familiar CEO blogger and then you got me all stirred up about Foley. Only in that I’m so pissed about his attempt to divert us from the very reason he’s making headlines.
Wow, this transparency thing is a biggie, eh? All I can say is….if I was completely transparent with my fiance pre-wedding day, I wonder if she’d still married this dumb Okie. No, we’re not talking about earth-shattering, Foley-like confessions here, but I might have tipped the scales in another suitor’s favor.
However, my lack of transparency has resulted in the best 21 years of my life. Dang it, now I’m conflicted all over again!
Thanks for making us think.
Dennis
Oct 12th, 2006
Reply to “Damage Control”