In 2001, Antoni was working at a business that was underperforming and facing layoffs. People didn’t know who would be cut or when. You could tell by people’s behavior that anxiety was at an all-time high. Managers were “networking” in the right corridors, colleagues started to crowd meetings to look indispensable, and teams were slowing down because nobody wanted to make the wrong move.
One leader chose a different tactic. Every day, at the same time, he stood in the same spot where anyone could walk up to him. He shared what he actually knew (not what he guessed), answered questions without theater, and ended with a concrete direction for “today.” People still didn’t like the situation, but the atmosphere changed. Not because he shared more information than everyone else. Because he paired transparency with clarity.
That pairing is the point. Leaders talk about “being transparent” as if it’s the whole job, but it isn’t. Transparency and clarity are different muscles. Transparency builds trust, while clarity builds focus. When you confuse them, you end up paying twice in lost time and diminished credibility.
The myth: more transparency automatically creates clarity
Transparency in a company setting typically means more dashboards, more all-hands, and more context. It feels responsible—especially in uncertain moments—because it signals you aren’t hiding anything.
But facts don’t organize themselves. People still have to decide what matters, what they need to ignore, and what to do next. When leaders don’t provide that structure, they leave teams confused, and teams will fill in the blanks with rumor and gossip. In the end, this leads to more insecurity and more internal politics.
How transparency can coexist with confusion
This is why “radical transparency” can coexist with mass confusion. You can be open and still leave people directionless.
In some instances, transparency can even backfire. David De Cremer summarizes research showing that “complete transparency” can trigger predictable side effects: blame cultures (because you see who erred without understanding why), distrust (because being constantly monitored feels like suspicion), and even resistance and reduced creativity in highly exposed environments.
In our decades of experience working with leaders and organizations, this oversharing is one of two extreme communication modes that companies can slip into. It’s worth taking a closer look at these two and their costs before we examine how leaders can avoid them. The following are two traps that many leaders often fall into (but should stop doing).
1. Transparent but unclear: the ‘information dump’ organization
This is the leader who shares everything: forecasts, board slides, Slack threads, meeting notes. They hide nothing, but execution continues to drift. That’s because you highlight nothing when you share everything. People don’t know which metrics are “heads up” versus “background.” They don’t know which risks are actionable. The natural response among workers in this scenario is to hedge and wait. Worse yet, when incoming data exceeds what people can process, information overload is the inevitable result. And according to research, this overload can lead to worse decision-making, higher stress, and lower productivity.
Yet productivity isn’t the only area that suffers. Ambiguity has measurable psychological and performance costs. Meta-analytic research on role ambiguity—a close cousin of organizational “unclear-ness”—finds it too is associated with worse outcomes, including strain and reduced performance.
Transparent-but-unclear leaders often misread the feedback from their workers. They hear, “We’re confused,” and respond by adding more information. But in doing so, they’re trying to fix traffic jam by pouring more cars onto the road.
2. Clear but opaque: the ‘because-I-said-so’ organization
The second mistake looks better on paper but is just as costly. Leaders succinctly present things, set firm deadlines, and outline who’s accountable for what. As a result, everyone knows what to do. But (and this is the critical bit) the “why” is missing.
This is important. As Nancy Duarte points out in a Harvard Business Review article, when you ask people to change behavior, their first question is rarely “how.” It’s “why.” If people don’t recognize the why, they can become suspicious of a leader’s motives.
What leaders should do instead
So how do you know if you’re missing transparency or clarity? Start by listening to the reactions you already get. If people say, “What are we supposed to do with this?”, “Why are we doing these tasks?” or “What’s the point?” you are not being clear. If people say, “We feel out of the loop,” or “Decisions come out of nowhere,” you are not being transparent.
By paying attention and listening to what they express, you don’t even need a survey to detect the gap. Your people are already telling you what your company needs to do.
From there, we recommend a three-step process that we’ve seen numerous successful leaders intuitively adapt, as a way of ensuring the proper balance of transparency and clarity:
- Start with transparency. This is what we know, and what information we still miss.
- Add clarity. This is why you need to know.
- End with direction. These are the short-term goals we pursue, the reasons for them, and how we follow up.
This is a simple yet impactful framework that brings transparency and clarity together. It eliminates unnecessary confusion and frustration, so that your people can be more productive and generate better results. And that’s exactly what Antoni’s boss in the hallway was doing.
