In my last post I asked for more transparency. It occurred to me that, much like pornography, it's hard to define but we know it when we see it. So, rather than talk about abstract concepts like transparency, let's describe what we mean.
Currently in the banking space, there is very little transparency. When you open a bank account, there's a ton of legal gibberish thrown at you and you are simply expected to sign it. Transparency in this case would be a simple document that calls out the important rights and obligations - for you, and for the bank. When you are denied credit or turned down for a loan, there is often little transparency. In this case transparency would be a clear indication about why you were denied, and perhaps some guidance on how to correct the problem. Recently I was charged an overlimit fee by a credit card company. When I called to ask to have it waived, I was told that wasn't possible. I asked about how to escalate the issue and was told there was no escalation procedure. Tough luck! I just continued to press the issue and it was finally resolved. I am uncertain whether or not to keep the card. There was a complete failure of transparency in the support process. I would have preferred a simple progression with clear communication about the next steps. First I was told there were none, then it turns out perhaps there is some escalation possible.
Beyond the banking industry, I'd like more transparency in government. The Obama administration entered and promised more transparency. Remember when Obama promised to post any bill at least 72 hours before a vote? This administration is as opaque as the Bush administration, and neither seemed to understand the importance of transparency when it comes to trust. We have an engaged, active electorate that wants to see the fine print, and wants some sunshine on the sausage making. If Charlie Rangel has ethics problems, let's bring them to light NOW. Hiding behind obfuscations, whether that's executive branch decision making or 1000 page bills that don't get read before a vote don't create transparency, and create even more corrosive distrust.
Someone recently described transparency this way:
"Transparency is also about what you ask people- not just what you tell them." Jennie Bledsoe, Dir. Internal Comm, ServiceMaster.
Partially correct. True transparency would be to do as much of your work in the open, so people don't even have to ask why you do what you do. Trust comes from believing that your partner, your supplier, your government has your best interests and outcomes at heart and works to fulfill them.
Reagan said "Trust, but verify". I don't need to verify the things I can see and experience. Transparency provides visibility and answers questions before they are asked.
In a world full of bloggers, Tweeters, socially connected Facebookers and friends, it may be hard but it is rarely impossible to find out what is going on. The more difficult a firm makes it to understand its inner machinations and decisions, the less people will believe in it and the more they will drill in to find out what's going on. A decade ago it took several years to prove Enron was corrupt, but it was outside analysts that discovered the truth. More recently it took several years to discover Madoff's deceits, but it was uncovered as well. The Obama administration is facing calls for more transparency, from troop levels in Afghanistan (already leaked) to decisions about health care.
The banks haven't yet figured it out, but they will, or they'll go the way of the dodo.
We, the consumers, are too engaged, too smart and too connected to ignore the walls of obfuscation and the deliberate attempts to impugn our knowledge and ability to interpret. Make it easy on yourself, design your business for transparency and customer engagement, rather than building walls and keeping secrets.
Comments