During a recent interview with Bob Knorpp of “The Beancast,” the topic of transparency came up. In particular, should the concept of “transparency” be mandatory for companies and their executives? With the pervasiveness of tools like Twitter, blogs and Youtube, it certainly is a lot easier to be transparent. And given the current state of the financial and auto industries, one might think “corporate transparency” might be ripe for its own constitutional amendment.

While those of you that know me understand that I am a big proponent of transparency, I told Bob in our interview that he’s barking up the wrong tree. While we should all strive toward being as transparent as possible, the real holy grail is actually “authenticity.” Yes, the two are linked conceptually, but they mean fairly different things. One is about allowing for complete visibility into one’s public and private activities. The other is focused on the concept of being genuine and communicating real feelings – good or bad.

What does this mean for you? Well, for one it gives you a little bit of wiggle room when it comes to sensitive issues like employee compensation (most folks agree that we really aren’t ready for everyone to know how much we all make). It also means that how you conduct yourself is more important than what you are willing to tell people. To reinforce this point, just see what people are saying about Bear Grylls of tv show Man vs. Wild fame. While his show is much more engaging and exciting than Survivorman, his lack of “authenticity” has hurt his credibility.

No related posts.