The Hidden Danger of Valuing Transparency
December 13, 2007
Yesterday I wrote about what it’s like being an introvert in social media. Today, I want to address another aspect of social media that has tarnished the reputations of individuals and companies. And that is transparency.
But it’s not what you think. This isn’t a post about how some companies aren’t transparent and how that’s a bad thing. Instead, this is a post about how the idea that any lack of transparency is automatic proof that someone or some organization has something bad to hide.
As an introvert, I know that I have a limit before I feel overexposed or even just physically tired from putting myself out there. So, in order for me to be personally successful in this field, I need to limit how much I divulge or give. And many times, those limits and boundaries seem to be tighter than others who are successful in the social media space.
But those limits don’t mean I have something to hide. Yet, when transparency is valued too highly, it can be perceived as such.
Another way individuals and organizations are hurt by the over-valuing of transparency is when they value such qualities as privacy and being discreet. It used to be that being discreet was something to be lauded.
But then we have a company like Enron, so the jump-to-conclusions mat gets pulled back out. We generalize the problems that go on with a few to be characteristic of all.
Now, transparency is valued above all. This is creating an expectation and actualization of certain folks letting it all hang out. But there’s a reason most of us don’t live in nudist colonies.
I suspect that this pendulum will keep swinging in the direction of excessive transparency. And just like Enron on the opposite side of the spectrum, something will happen. Excessiveness always overplays its hand.
I hope for the day when the momentum rests gently within a middle range.
Posted in Conversation Marketing by Nathania Johnson
1.919.451.8983
December 13th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
If someone doesn’t keep pushing to extremes, how will we define moderation?
December 13th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
You don’t have to push extremes to define moderation.
And usually those who do, don’t really appreciate, respect or tolerate the pushing of the extremes of the opposing viewpoint.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:38 am
As this “interactive marketing” industry expands to consume the old AdWorld and the old RealEstateTrainee population, things will only get worse. The mob mentality seems to be, if you’re not transparent you are of no use to the masses of newbies and theerfore, worthy of derision. Yadyadayada show me the beef.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:12 am
Nathania, it’s a good question and one I tussled with when I was looking at authenticity and transparency in the way that we write. The conclusion I reached was that being authentic (and transparent) doesn’t have to mean sharing all the details of your life, it does mean being genuine, true to your values, reflecting your inner core. (This should appeal to introverts:-))
The test I’d use is - would your readers/clients be disappointed if they found out something about you that you’re not disclosing?
The Enron example - er, yes. Some aspect of your personal life that you want to keep private? No.
And as someone who shares similar values (respect for private space, including those individuals who inhabit it) I become if anything more, not less likely to trust and respect you because of your decision.
Which is where I think social media comes into its own - it allows us to connect with those with whom we feel a sense of connection and rapport. Social media networking with extroverts would exhaust me after a while. But conversations with people who are interested in some quiet reflection from time to time? Bring it on
Joanna