Project Management

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

What steps could your team take to ensure that transparency leads to action, not just awareness?

linkedin twitter facebook   Agile   Ethics   Leadership  
avatar
Stelian ROMAN Project Manager| MicroSafety Carlingford, New South Wales, Australia

Transparency is a touchstone of Agile mindset and of modern governance, yet it remains one of its most debated aspects, especially when information is sensitive or politically charged. Whether in Agile project teams, corporate boards, or public institutions, the question persists: how transparent should governance reporting be? Is it an ethical imperative to lay every fact bare, or must some details remain confidential to protect people and processes? Drawing on perspectives from the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, research articles, and the author’s hands-on experience as a project manager, this post explores the nuances of transparency in governance reporting.

Navigating Sensitivity and Confidentiality

One of the most common concerns is how to balance transparency with the need for confidentiality. Sensitive information, be it commercial secrets, personnel issues, or politically charged data, requires careful handling. The PMI Code of Ethics urges practitioners to respect confidentiality while maintaining honesty and responsibility. Project managers know that over-sharing can create risks, but under-sharing can undermine trust and accountability.

The Illusion of Transparency: Performative Reporting

“Performative transparency” is a phrase that crops up often in governance discussions. This occurs when reports appear detailed and comprehensive but actually avoid uncomfortable truths. Transparency must be about making the real situation visible to those who can act, not about ticking boxes or protecting reputations. Superficial dashboards or status indicators may look transparent but often conceal meaningful risks, dependencies, or flawed assumptions.

Responding to Repeated Issues

Another persistent challenge is how governance bodies respond when reports reveal repeated issues. Blame and finger-pointing can create a culture of fear, encouraging concealment rather than openness. The PMI Code of Ethics emphasizes respect, responsibility, and fairness, values that point toward systemic correction and support rather than punitive action.

Trust and Cynicism

Transparent reporting can create short-term discomfort, especially when it exposes problems. However, research and practitioner experience consistently indicate that transparency strengthens trust over time. Still, transparency without follow-through can breed cynicism. As practitioners know, merely reporting the truth is insufficient if it does not lead to real action or change.

Blog post: Transparency in Governance Reporting: Striking the Balance Between Honesty and Responsibility

ProjectManagement.com - The Agile Enterprise

Sort By:
avatar
Robert Snyder Founder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLC Chicago, Il, United States
“Execution’s two best friends are simplicity and transparency.” – Chris McChesney.
Yet we know that agile has an affinity for ambiguity.
And conventional wisdom is that the workplace is getting more complex
systemically or systematically. Very few thought leaders are promoting simplicity, except if you’re talking to an executive, simplify without labeling anything “dumbing it down.”

Let’s look at the cost profile of transparency.

Transparency requires upfront work, so significant upfront cost.
Transparency reduces downstream / marginal work, so low marginal cost.
So, transparency is congruent with scalability.

Tribal knowledge and knowledge hoarding (two opposites of transparency) are originally easy – low upfront cost. No work for whoever attended the meeting.
But they are not scalable. It’s high marginal cost to have “tribal knowledge” useful.

For now, transparency is profit-friendly because it’s consistent with scalability.

Fair?
avatar
Robert Snyder Founder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLC Chicago, Il, United States
Stelian, these four terms are valuable to keep handy as we try to improve corporate culture.

1.“uncomfortable truths”
2.“the real situation”
3.“protecting reputation”
4.“short-term discomfort”

Workplaces with these culture traits aim to protect certain employees.
For now, readers should read between the lines for who the protected employees are.

Finger-pointing is common because frameworks like RACI formally obscure and decouple authority from accountability.
Directionally …

·authority tends to be higher on the org chart
·accountability tends to be lower on the org chart

This is also known as “Muck rolls downhill.”

·RACI is a sweet deal for senior-ranking employees.
·RACI is a bad deal for junior-ranking employees.

Values are the right leadership paradigm to 1) reject overt rejection, 2) harbor covert rejection, 3) tolerate lip service, inauthenticity, double standards, and untrustworthiness.
Corporate values translate to institutional tolerance for untrustworthiness, which is why we have the cliché of executives having to defend values by SAYING that they are NOT “just words on a wall.”

If a junior-ranking employee violates company values, consequences are common.
If a senior-ranking employee violates company values, consequences are less common.
avatar
Robert Snyder Founder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLC Chicago, Il, United States
Stelian, your title mentions action.
The English language has a form of speech that conveys action.
That form of speech is a verb.

So, governing with adjectives like Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed contain no action. They’re noise and a distraction from action, why is why your question is so valid and so valuable. RACI undermines action. RACI is a false sense of governance, discipline, and trustworthiness.

What verbs do we need to force action? How many?
Verbs that constitute activity?
- - - - -
1.Verbs that constitute productivity?
2.Do we choose verbs that create evidence of action?
3.Could we choose verbs that fuse together authority and accountability?
4.Could muck ever roll uphill?
5.Could such verbs be standardized?
6.Could the verbs boost scalability?
7.Could the verbs be repeatable, like muscle memory, so we don’t reinvent the wheel?
8.Could the verbs anticipate untrustworthiness?
9.Could the verbs make it easy to detect untrustworthiness?
10. Could the verbs make it easy to reassign for untrustworthiness?
11. Could the verbs avoid micro-managing?

The answers to the questions below the dotted line are all “yes.”
avatar
Robert Snyder Founder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLC Chicago, Il, United States

Stelian, here are the exact steps to ensure you are on a path for transparency and action. These steps don’t finish the job, but they are a robust start. 

1.Inventory every document your team believes is worth governing with Five Verbs (Draft, Review, Revise, Approve, Distribute). This inventory is work worth sponsoring, scheduling, and synchronizing. All other work is not worth documenting, sponsoring or reserving time.

2.For cross-project documentation, choose a frequency of quarterly, monthly, or weekly.

3.For project-specific documentation, the default frequency is once per project. Rework is always possible if the team wants to change an expectation.

4.Arrange these documents in a schedule according to their interdependencies.

5.As a default, reserve four rows for every document. Place “Review & Revise” on the same row.

6.Assign DRAFT for every document. This loosely maps to R of RACI.

7.Assign REVIEW & REVISE for every document. This loosely maps to C of RACI.

8.Assign APPROVE for every document. This loosely maps to A of RACI.

9.Assign DISTRIBUTE for every document (admittedly, this is a misnomer since the list of names should be who RECEIVES the document). This loosely maps to I of RACI.

10. Default every duration to 1 day. Poll every assignment for their exceptions; e.g. someone asks for 3 days.

That’s probably enough for a first snapshot at precise steps. What questions, concerns, ideas do you (or anyone / everyone else) have?

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:
ADVERTISEMENTS

Solutions are not the answer.

- Richard M. Nixon

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors