Transparency the New Way

Although transparency can be identified as an earlier concept, it is today that many issues deriving from the evolving climate and knowledge presented have pressured many organizations to strategically become more transparent. Transparency means to be open, honest, and accountable and it's all about responsibility. People listen and make the evaluations and reach decisions based upon what their potential audiences say. Touching off an international debate on morals, ethics, policy, politics, and personal responsibility the old passive view of transparency has given way to a new transparency. The idea of transparency has evolved from an intellectual curiosity to a proactive requirement. It is now the new operating standard.

At the individual levels, transparency introduces a new and effective way of developing teamwork and making staff more sensitive to their role and performance. Transparency is a do-it-yourself mechanism that helps control all business improvements and kills poor performance.  Here, I will present the levels of transparency, the drivers of transparency, and issues involving ethics and transparency as they relate to both public and private sectors.

        The level of transparency needed in order to optimize operational efficiency within the organization has been questionable. Berggren and Bernshten (2007) argue that strategy transparency drives company performance. This ideal depends on the business strategy being broken into concise and meaningful components. Employees understanding and knowledge of the business transparency equips them with the proper knowledge to execute the business strategy. Berggren and Bernshten (2007) entitle this initiative “strategy transparency” (p. 411). The execution of the company’s strategy plays a key role in the success of the business. Execution affects the financial performance six times more than a strong business plan itself.

        In a study with Silicon Valley Software, a global business, Berggren and Bernshten (2007) describes four levels of transparency. The first level of transparency includes not revealing the business strategy to employees.  Non-transparency, an extreme precautionary measure, prevents outside competitors from gaining competitive advantages from internal sources. This level works best for oligopolies and monopolies, industries where market penetration can not be easily achieved. (Berggren and Bernshten, 2007, p. 412)

 The second level of transparency is defined by “ambiguous transparency” that is interpreted liberally by executives (Berggren and Bernshten, 2007, p.412). They understand the business strategy solely within the context of their position and how it affects there accountability. I would conclude that this level will enact an incoherent overall business strategy across the hierarchy of the organization. Berggren and Bernshten (2007) expresses that this level of transparency is good for large, multi national businesses where there are different lines of business (p. 412).