We community folks like to talk about transparency as key to honest and successful community engagement. Transparency in this sense equates to eliminating spin, admitting missteps, listening to community feedback, and engaging in open conversations instead of merely trying to push a carefully crafted message to the community.

If you look at dictionary.com’s definition of transparent, it’s easy to apply traditional meanings associated with transparency to the business definition, but it’s also easy to create confusion as transparency in a traditional sense can be both good and bad.

Let’s take a look at the semantics and applications of some of these definitions.

1. Definition one is in relation to a substance and its being able to be penetrated by light rays, but there are certainly some worthwhile applications. ‘…So that bodies situated beyond or behind can be distinctly seen.’ In applying this to business and community, the bodies situated beyond the substance are the employees of a company, the substance is the communication vehicle (email, website, chat), and the light equates to truth. It would follow then that a ‘transparent’ business would ensure that truth could be transmitted through all their communication channels and that the people behind the company would never be hidden.
2. ‘Admitting the passage of light through interstices.’ This definition has less implications than the previous definition, but it certainly makes a stronger case for light equating to truth, and definitely applies to Dave Berger’s analogy, sent via direct message on twitter, that transparency is ‘like working in a fish bowl.’ So many implications arise from this analogy and begs the question, can too much light/truth be harmful or deleterious to the health of a business?
3. Diaphanous means translucent, which is slightly different from transparent and adds additional levels of complexity. If a business is translucent they’re almost completely transparent and this introduces the notion of degrees of transparency, which may or may not be a bad thing.
4. Definitions four and five have negative overtones and introduce the notion that when businesses/brands make attempts to appear transparent, but are doing so under pretense, those attempts are themselves transparent.
5. Definition six deals with openness and earnestness, and it follows that a transparent business is by nature open and earnest, which of course is what community professionals advise and encourage.
6. Definition seven is tricky, ‘…Operating in such a way as to not be perceived by users,’ is certainly a less commonly explored definition and speaks to the positive and negative qualities of unperceived processes.

Defining transparency in business, although seemingly obvious on the surface, is actually pretty complex. There are so many nuances and certainly a variety of interpretations, not to mention the question of whether true transparency can ever really be achieved (an idea that came from Jeremy Pepper on twitter, and I hope he follows through on a post about this topic).

I’m certainly not an expert on this topic and I’m actually more curious as to your definition of transparency. I’ve really just begun to think about this topic and encourage any and all conversation related to the subject.

If you’re looking for more official resources, there are people working towards a common understanding of transparency in business. I suggest you check out the work being done by Shel Holtz and John C. Havens in their quest to write a book on this very topic.

Browse Timeline

• « Hahlo iPhone Apps
• » What The Yelp?

blog comments powered by Disqus