The Damage from Secrecy

This has been such a busy news year that the story with potentially the biggest long term impact has rather disappeared in recent weeks. That is Wikileaks, and what it means for secrecy in future.
That is sad for the poor lad in the US who is accused of being behind many of the leaks, whose treatment appears to have been barbaric. It is also a bit sad for Julian Assange, who does seem to be partially motivated by self-aggrandisement, and who is now stuck fighting his seedy court case out of the spotlight.
But it may be that Wikileaks provided an important catalyst for the big story that swamped it, the Arab Spring. True, there were many factors leading to uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere, but the public revelation of the greed of rulers was an important one. Well done Wikileaks.
What Wikileaks may do is accelerate an existing trend, a good trend in my opinion, towards openness in the world.
Nowadays, it is hard to keep a secret. When I started in work, most files were kept on paper, senior managers had secretaries (who, as their name implies, kept secrets) and the workforce were physically separated from their bosses. Now, we have computers, open offices and flatter structures.
Despite this (or because of it?) in some firms it is quite hard to find any document now which doesn’t have the word confidential on the top. We also receive many e-mails where the disclaimers consume as much space as the content, not that any of us pay them any attention.
This suggests a system out of control. Lawyers have a lot to answer for, as usual. But so do ordinary managers. There are many bad reasons to keep information away from others:
- Hoarding of power
- Making one’s incompetence or laziness less visible
- Polishing of ego (by creating an illusion of importance to one’s work)
- Avoiding any risk
- Avoiding necessary confrontations, for example about staff effectiveness
There are a few good reasons too. Competitors might damage our business if they discover our acquisition plans or future pricing strategies. Fair enough. But markets work quickly now, and staff frequently move been companies, so it is a fool’s errand to try to keep too many things secret. It won’t work.
And, apart from all the bad reasons listed above, there are bad impacts of keeping things secret:
- Demotivating staff
- Stopping staff from doing useful things in support of strategy
- Adding to bureaucracy (not to mention the trees lost printing all those disclaimers)
- Offering (illusory) cover for ill thought out or even illegal activity
- Promoting a culture where protecting what we have becomes more important than using what we have or creating something better
Altogether, companies would be smart to radically reduce the items they claim as secret. Open companies innovate, motivate, and ultimately win in markets.
Wikileaks, and other trends like social networking, have the same message for individuals and also for countries. All entities will need to radically reduce what they keep as secret, and then work very hard to make sure that what they really want to keep as secret stays secret. In other words, put less inside the wall, but make the wall stronger.
I hope this happens soon, and we can thank Wikileaks and others if it does. Already, the idea of diplomacy is changing for the better. Would Obama have talked openly about the 1967 border as a basis for an Arab-Israeli settlement had the Oslo and Clinton outcomes remained secret? I am sure that many dictators are sleeping less easily and acting more transparently now as well, all for the better.
We have such a long way to go though, as with any culture change. One sad outcome of 9/11 has been the expansion of secret services around the world, with precious little scrutiny. Personally, I am not heartened when I hear that my government is not sending ground troops to Libya, but hints that it is providing all sorts of covert help for rebels. If help is offered in my name, I would like to know what it is and why it is there.
All these super-injunctions in the UK are not impressive either, but maybe the secret pact between politicians and media in France is even more poisonous. Dominique Strauss Kahn may now be ruefully wishing his personal behaviour had come under scrutiny at home earlier in his career.
However, perhaps our greatest opportunity for openness lies with ourselves. Many of us have virtual confidential marks, limiting what we choose to share with others. Secrets have their place, but all the bad reasons and bad impacts for companies and countries apply to us as individuals too. In general, the more we share, the more we will accomplish. I discovered this myself three years ago, when I started talking openly to different people about my career, and even about more personal matters. I felt less blocked as a result, and found solutions to many problems that before had been stuck in my own head. I also strengthened relationships as a result and became able to help others too. Most important of all, I became able to view my own situation with greater clarity.
Blogging can help too, because it forces me to examine and articulate what matters to me. It also helps to curb my bitchiness and negativity, as I choose to think before condemning now, not just within the blog. Just like with Wikileaks, and also those now wishing they had been more discrete on Facebook having just lost a job opportunity or their modesty, there is a learning curve involved. I learned last week of someone using their blog to rubbish their job, their boss and their customers. Perhaps they felt it safe because the blog is in a little known foreign language, but it still feels most unwise.
So, maybe, Julian will have the most impact on this decade after all, even if the furore is dying down. And I believe the impact will be overwhelmingly positive. And, as so often, at least in this blog, the place we can all start to make a difference is with ourselves.