Hillary’s Emails: When to Be Transparent

Another Washington scandal is upon us. This time it has to do with the emails sent by Hillary Clinton during the time she was Secretary of State. Because she is an announced candidate for the 2017 presidency, the issue is front and center. Apparently, for convenience, she used a single personal email account for both personal and work-related emails. Now, these emails are the subject of scrutiny, particularly as it relates to those more sensitive emails regarding Benghazi and Libya. Even though former Secretary Clinton believes she has been in compliance with the “spirit of the law” by deleting only emails that were personal, House Speaker John Boehner (R) is launching an investigation to make certain than nothing improper was conducted.

This is certainly not the first former, or sitting, official to come under scrutiny, nor will it be the last. In fact, the game these days in Washington seems to be to find anything, on either side of the aisle, that would appear to be an exaggeration, not even an outright lie, in order to discredit the other side.

In the business world, the issue of transparency has become more prominent with the passing of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), “an Act to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws, and for other purposes.” This was enacted as a response to the misdeeds of major corporate accounting scandals such as Enron and WorldCom. Although no one would argue about the need for companies to be honest and forthright, avoid conflicts of interest and have auditor independence in their financial reporting, some would suggest that there are times when full transparency is unnecessary and even harmful. Some have even argued that SOX has hurt America’s international competitive edge by introducing overly complex regulations.

Do you think there are times when being less than fully transparent is both ethical and desirable? Are there times when full disclosure actually puts people, projects and companies at risk? Lack of full transparency happens in our daily life all of the time—those little white lies we tell to keep the peace. Do we really think our spouse or partner looks great in a particular fashion item or with a new haircut? Do we fully disclose our beliefs about politics, religion, money and personal relationships to our friends? Do we always agree with our boss’s opinions, even about mundane items? Do we let our manager know when we are seeking employment elsewhere? The list of times that we are less than fully transparent, and even deceitful, is endless. Although most people would agree that honesty is the best policy, we have all fallen short. If we take a long look in the mirror, the overwhelming majority of us cannot say that we are fully transparent, or even honest, all of the time.

When the issue around transparency surfaces, it typically suggests that being transparent means there is nothing to hide and that by not being transparent there is something that is hidden. Are there guidelines or principles that could help us determine when to be fully transparent and when not to? First, in what situations should we always be open, forthright and transparent? There are at least three circumstances in which transparency is an absolute.

Transparency Is Required

1. When Endangerment Is Involved

There is a long-standing standard in the field of mental health, prompted by a 1976 case in California in which a university counseling center psychologist had knowledge of, but did not reveal, potential danger to a student that ultimately resulted in the student’s homicide. The law created a “duty to protect” requirement for mental health practitioners, who, when bodily harm is threatened, must fulfill this duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California). Therefore, when there is a situation in which an individual’s personal safety is at risk, transparency is clearly required. In my judgment, in the world of business the same standard should apply and extend to threats against a business or enterprise. This “duty to protect” would apply if an unhappy employee, former employee, competitor or nefarious individual threatened to disrupt business processes, spread untruths to company consumers, contaminate products, hack into company technology, or threaten to hurt the company by other means.

2. When Not to Tell Would Be Detrimental

When a person has knowledge of information that, if not revealed, would be detrimental to a co-worker, should they tell them? When an individual’s behavior is negative in the workplace, should anyone have a conversation about that behavior with the individual? If so, who is the best choice to have that conversation? This is clearly a more delicate area, and one requiring more discretion than when endangerment is involved. All too often, by the time an individual’s “bad behavior” is finally addressed, those around him/her have noticed it for a long time. They have not had the courage, or felt it was their place, to confront the person. Colleagues have a responsibility to speak to the person or alert their supervisors when they notice a pattern of repeated “bad behavior.”

3. When Transparency Is in the Interest of the Greater Good

When knowledge of sensitive information is in the best interest of the greatest number of stakeholders, owners, employees or customers, transparency always trumps the narrower interests of an elite few. This transparency includes being open about a company’s financials, downturns in business, major layoffs, executive compensation and other circumstances that would seem detrimental to the business or business stakeholders but are in keeping with good business practices. In fact, the sooner a company, or in some cases an individual, comes forward about a business problem, the sooner the company can begin remediating the problems rather than expending energy on either “spinning” or covering up the information.

Under what circumstance is it legitimate to either not be transparent or be only partially transparent? What are the situations in which being transparent, forthright and direct would not be appropriate?

Full Transparency Is Not Appropriate

1. When It Would Unnecessarily Hurt Someone

There are times when divulging information would not be helpful, and could even be harmful. Being honest in the spirit of “authenticity” can often come across as self-righteous and self-serving. It is best to use discretion in passing out compliments you do not really mean and being totally honest could be hurtful. For example, “You look good in that outfit,” when you are more focused on the fact that the person has gained weight, needs a haircut or such. Another example is when a direct report is trying their hardest, but their work product is still not up to standard, and you say “good job” so as not to discourage their efforts (but do circle back with them later privately to offer counsel and instruction).

2. When Information Is Deemed to Be Confidential

There are clearly times that information should be held “close to the vest” by companies. The examples are many, including:

1. When a company is considering acquiring another company, and it would be either inadvisable or in violation of certain SEC regulations to disclose;
2. When, by revealing the launch of a new product too soon, a company could lose its competitive advantage;
3. When an individual is about to be laid off but the process involved in the transaction needs to be kept quiet to avoid rumors or even legal liability;
4. When premature leakage around issues, not yet public, could affect a company’s stock price and could even be illegal—just ask Martha Stewart!

In most of these cases, transparency is dependent on timing and not intended to remain hidden indefinitely. Circumstances may dictate the need for a period of confidentiality.

In journalism, it is often the case that a writer wants to keep the source of a story confidential, to protect the source’s identity while being able to print information from them. It is always a slippery slope when their sources are revealing information that could compromise national security (think Edward Snowden) but could also reveal issues that would otherwise remain hidden and are important for the public to know (think Watergate and Deep Throat).

There may be other times that call for discretion when being transparent would either advance one’s own agenda or hurt the greater good.

The overarching major principle regarding transparency is found in the adage “Treat others as you would want them to treat you.” Full transparency can be tough for organizations. There are times and circumstances when information needs to be kept “close to the vest.” If you treat your community (customers, employees, vendors, supporters) as you would like to be treated in a similar situation, you have much better odds of keeping them and keeping your organization moving forward.