What exactly is transparency?

Transparency is a misnomer frankly. Theoretically it is when a transaction is without ambiguity. More importantly, "transparency" is based on the assumption that full disclosure is a universal good. That is, the more informed I am the better decision I will make. Says Sy Sims, "The educated consumer is our best customer."

Sorry Sy but that's not necessarily true. Science Magazine published a paper last month titled "On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect," (February 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5763, pp. 1005 - 1007). According to the latest research, "Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not always advantageous to engage in thorough conscious deliberation before choosing. Named the 'deliberation-without-attention' hypothesis, it was confirmed in four studies on consumer choice, both in the laboratory as well as among actual shoppers, that purchases of complex products were viewed more favorably when decisions had been made in the absence of attentive deliberation."

Note the operative words "before choosing." That's what transparency is all about. Do I have all the information and resources available so that my decision... is mine. Remember, it's this choice thing that got us kicked out of paradise to begin with. Choice, or the lack thereof, is the fundamental human condition.

Anyway, the misnomer is that full disclosure is synonymous with total information. This is the root cause of what I call Organizational Tourette's Syndrome. Organizations feel compelled to tell you too much information today in the sprit of "full disclosure." TMI! Excuse me but "PLAHLEEES SHUT THE DOOR," I used to say to my ex-husband. To the hamburger chain, pahleeese... I really don't want to hear the details of how you process the beef to retain its flavor. By the time you're through telling me how the moose was cleaned, splayed and spliced, stomach, entrails hoof and bloody eyeballs... I've lost my appetite altogether. Full disclosure certainly has helped society variously but it has also ironically put a huge damper on consumer confidence. I rather starve than eat that thing now that I know what it is. Same goes for my once love of politicians, priests, cars, mayonnaise and cigarettes.

How did the cultural bias for full disclosure come about?

It is a direct consequence of the steady drip of high-profile scandals at companies such as Adelphia Communications, HealthSouth, Global Crossing, Tyco International, Worldcom, and Enron, to name a few. The tech bubble... yousa!, a historic boon of mega swindlers. "Irrational exuberance" was because we were all led to believe that we'd get rich. (For the record, we the PR Industry made a shit load of money facilitating that. We were the air in the bubble.) Add to the scandals that we were hoodwinked into an historically ethically compromising war with the misleading claim of WMDs. We've all been terribly had.

History will look back and not refer to this as the Age of Transparency, but rather the Age of Fraud and Malfeasants.

Nobody trusts institutions anymore! Let's do a study to affirm the obvious. PR king, Richard Edelman did. The Edelman Trust Barometer (hokey title) found that "We have reached an important juncture, where the lack of trust in established institutions and figures of authority has motivated people to trust their peers as the best sources of information about a company."

Oh. Well. I guess that generally speaking then, one could say that "trust" is a necessary element in decision making. Apparently, society is going through a massive realignment. Today, forget church, your priest, your boss, the doctor... I trust Marcy.

Here's the problem with that. Unless I am only going to do business with Marcy, or unless everyone on the planet decides to defer to Marcy's counsel (excellent as it is), the possibility that a stranger and I will share the same belief structure, and find trust, is remote.

Ah... that's a problem. As a result, each of us needs or thinks we need to know everything to buy a simple loaf of bread. Now tell me how many grams of fat there are in a single serving. Too much information.

How is it now the weapon of Taliban Militia-like Net geek thugs?

First, the flattening of the business ecosystem along with the proliferation of various communications technologies has not only resulted in a dramatic increase in individual empowerment... it's led to the rise of "smart mobs." A phrase coined by Howard Rheingold in his book Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution, "a smart mob is a quickly formed group that as a consequence of its use of network tools, can dramatically increase and focus social coordination." Depending on how the technology is used, "smart mobs may be beneficial or detrimental to society."

Okay, now look at certain PR Bloggers and lead zealots like Shel Holtz and friends. These are the same geeky misfits that made up the high-school AV club. Now listen to Shel and others self righteously proclaim that "Online credibility is based on transparency." These web-thug fundamentalists would surely mug Mini Mouse at Disney World and throw her into the Seven Seas Lagoon.

Why does the dynamic persist and where does it get its power?

Sadly, this is the PR's Blogging "A" team. They were the "pioneers" (their words). As such, their perceptions and misperceptions have been raised up as gospel. When they say the word "podcasting," i.e. a simple procedure of recording and putting that file on the web, you'd think you'd have heard an interview with Reinhart Stroodle, the famous international brain surgeon, on NPR.

It is self reinforcing because they promote and protect each other. Also, as the fundamentalists are loud, they give off the appearance of general consensus.

Bottom line: their real motive is to maintain their power. As such any threat is reduced.

Edward Wasserman, the Knight Professor of Journalism Ethics at Washington and Lee University speaking on the phenomena as it relates to media said, "To me, the cry for transparency isn't about holding media accountable. It's a way to make certain media discountable. It creates a rationale for ignoring content you dislike by dismissing it as the deliberate product of unshakeable prejudice."

CONCLUSION

Again, among the zealots, it's transparency for transparency sake across the board. Jeff Jarvis for instance, the blogger behind buzzmachine.com, thinks "there's pretty much no such thing as too much explaining. In fact, we haven't done nearly enough," he says.

Nonsense. Disclosure, ethically speaking is multifaceted. It is situational: I just don't want to tell you; I have a motive to tell you; I have a motive not to tell you; the inquirer has a motive to ask. Ironically, PR bloggers have the least moral grounding to question "transparency." As each situation is imbued with various implications of intention, their intensions are most suspect.

Now that's the issue. It is the conflict with choice that businesses today are just now learning to navigate. And until we come to terms with that, we need to better manage the fundamentalists. According to Wasserman, "Instead of ad hominem critiques, we're better off focusing on what matters: subjecting reporting to the test of truthfulness, and argument to the test of persuasiveness. That's the terrain we can fight and win on."

Someday history will look back and account for all the damage these thugs have caused in the name of truth.

Lastly, for all the small-minded PR thug bloggers, in the spirit of total transparency, I just farted.