Cultures and communities view transparency differently; behaviors and even our perceptions of cultures differ. For example, the sense is that the British are polite while the Dutch are direct and upfront. In the US, we can look at the two coasts, and on the one hand, we have New Yorkers who are abrupt and more to the point compared to Los Angelians, who are indirect and disguised. Both approaches have some merit, yet one should ask which produces better long-term benefits, especially within organizations.
With a team developing a culture of openness to engage in conflict and direct discussion, we tend to eliminate ambiguity and misunderstanding while increasing expediency, collaboration, and performance. However, while some organizations may appear polite, there is likely more back-stabbing, discontent, division, and, ultimately, disillusion. How can we create cohesion when we are not speaking with each other directly or being truthful about matters?
Do not confuse this with being rude, mean, or disrespectful. You can be direct and get your message across without degrading someone or undermining them. Individuals often believe the two are directly correlated, which is far from the truth. Think of all the time wasted when you second-guess what someone said merely because their message was so convoluted. Take what the Brits proudly refer to as humor infused with sarcasm. It is simply an extension of the desire to be polite and, therefore, ambiguous. After all, how many famous Dutch comedians do you know?
The Dutch will state that they are not only known for being tall and having pretty flowers and yummy cheese but that they are also truthful and transparent. They say what they think and can inevitably eliminate confusion and misunderstanding. So why be anything but direct?
Understanding your organization’s transparency culture is essential. Do we have an open discussion and confront each other when appropriate? Getting to the Dutch way, we may find that soon enough, we will know what others are thinking, appreciate their assistance when we miss something, and openly seek directness. In comparison, in opaque cultures, we wonder what someone thinks or are apprehensive about approaching them to share our differing views, all for the sake of ‘keeping the peace.
Within organizations, this peace and supposed stability is inevitably a breeding ground for inefficiencies and dominating subcultures, which are both the demise of progress. Do you want to be uncomfortable early and get it over with, versus being uncertain and having the discontent remain, under cover if not obvious?
