Why being fully transparent with your employees isn’t the answer

While many business leaders praise transparency as a cornerstone of strong leadership and trust building with employees, a workplace expert has warned that too much transparency can be detrimental and has revealed what should take its place for better results.

Business leaders are often urged to be open and share as much information as possible with their employees to foster trust and empower them. However, this well-meaning approach may not always be the most effective strategy.

Speaking with HR Leader, Michelle Gibbings, a workplace expert and award-winning author, revealed the hidden risks associated with excessive transparency on a team. Instead of being completely open, she advocates that business leaders should instead adopt strategic ambiguity as a more effective leadership approach.

The limits of transparency

Gibbings emphasised that while transparency is often praised as a means to build trust, she warned that “equating the two too simplistically can be misleading”.

She explained that trust is not solely established by providing individuals with “access to information”, but rather depends on “consistency, competence, and sound judgement”.

In fact, Gibbings warned that a relentless drive to disclose every detail, from “every misstep, conflict, or candid conversation”, can have unintended consequences, leading to a team that becomes overly cautious or hesitant to speak openly.

She noted that without the proper context or framework, too much transparency can “overwhelm employees, sow confusion, and trigger unnecessary anxiety”.

The power of strategic ambiguity

So, what’s the answer when too much transparency can negatively impact a team? Gibbings suggested that a compelling alternative that leaders can embrace is strategic ambiguity.

While she acknowledged that strategic ambiguity is “often associated with evasion”, Gibbings explained that, when applied intentionally, it can help teams “engage more deeply with purpose” instead of getting stuck in unnecessary details.

Gibbings highlighted that during times of uncertainty or change, “leaders can’t always offer definitive answers”, and striving to do so might lead to a misleading “sense of certainty” that can do more harm than good.

However, when leaders take the time to explain openly the reasons behind the unavailability of specific answers, Gibbings emphasised that this practice leads employees to “feel respected and included, not misled”.

One of the biggest hurdles associated with strategic ambiguity is the risk of it being interpreted as secrecy or a lack of clear direction. To mitigate this risk, Gibbings articulated that the “key lies in anchoring teams around what matters most”.

Instead of bombarding the team with every imaginable scenario, she proposed that leaders should concentrate on informing their team on “core principles, desired outcomes, and values-driven judgement”.

To accomplish this, Gibbings articulated that it is essential to transition the conversation from asking, “What exactly should I do?” to “What’s the right thing to do given what we know?”