David's comments seem like plain common sense to me. Even so, this needed to be said.

I keep forgetting that we're in a new age. Not the age of transparency/translucency; the age of "outing."

I was thinking that I was going to have to get someone drunk in New Orleans to learn the real dirt about the changes at crayon. All I have to do is read blogs.

Is this better or worse than gossiping in a tavern?

Yes, I'm talking about crayon here, Tom, though consistent with my policy of "translucent communications," I did not say so. I hoped that most of my readers wouldn't be following that specific situation and that it could start a more abstract conversation about the limits of transparency.

As for "outing," I know nothing of what happened behind the scenes there--though I know the two departing members, who have been too circumspect to share their angst with a jagoff like me--so I could have done no "outing," even if I'd wanted to.

I just looked at the way they framed this thing (publicly on their blogs) and chuckled at how typically rosey they made it sound.

That's simply what people who leave organizations do, and that's what the organizations they depart from do. Whether those people or organizations claim to value "transparency," or not.

And finally, this is worse than gossiping in a tavern because there is not a tavern involved.

I don't think any of us have a problem with the messages each put out about the split. That language is expected. Throwing the "real dirt" out there results in unnecessary trashing especially if the intent to trash the other partner wasn't initially intended.

I think, if I'm following you correctly, David, that you feel as I do that there is nothing wrong with a corporatation holding to some traditional communication principles in some instances. Sort of like the concept of issuing a corporate news release. Yes, it's canned, pre-vetted, sterile language, but then it's intended to simply put out the corporate line. I wouldn't expect to forgo that in favor of blogging it all just in the spirit of joining the social media generation (and just for the record the partners mentioned in David's post above held out the same argument against blogging everything vs. the Stowe Boyd position).

Your position here seems to be not so much that they engaged in less-than-transparent communication when announcing the split, but do so as seemingly contradictory advocates for "radical" transparency.

As to whether absolute transparency in this case is merited, I know one of the partners is likely to respond "it depends!" I would have to agree.

That's my point: even the transparency crowd plays tiddly-winks. As it must.

The style of the tiddly-winks is adorable in this case--and in some way I like it better than that REALLY horrible stuff, like when we hear the hard-charging CEO "left to spend time with family," etc.

David,
When I read Shel's and Neville's blog posts about their departure from crayon, I asked myself, "What happened…why did they leave?"

I don't NEED to know what transpired behind-the-scenes--but my gossipy nature would LIKE to know. I really did think about whether people would be talking about it at the IABC conference--and how I could hear about it.

Now, I could ask Shel and Neville directly--that would be the most direct and honorable way. But like some people have commented here, they might have to present their "public face," which is totally understandable.

Then I read your post here (which is very good, by the way), and thought, "We are in a different age--if people want to find out stuff, it is much easier and common to make that happen, because of blogging and the Internet."

That's why I wrote my comment: We are in a different age, and my desire to gossip can now be appeased easily--probably too easily.

I agree with you that this is worse than a tavern. If I get too nosey at a bar, someone might punch me out--and I certainly wouldn't spread that info very far. But here, I can spread "news" very quickly and very far, with little chance that I will be hurt by it.

Oh, see and here I thought he meant it was worst than in a tavern because here we can't gossip over beers!

Michael,
David DID mean that about the beers--me, I switched to NA beers about the time that I grew tired of people trying to punch me in the nose for being nosy and obnoxious.
Tom
(I'm still obnoxious, but now my reflexes are better when ducking punches.)

And what if there really is no big meaty story behind the story? What if they really are being completely transparent? I don't know anything about what happened, but I think it's sad that we assume the worst of people, even good people like those involved in this scenario.

That said, your point is valid, David. And I do believe that total transparency is not only impossible but not always wise. I like your "translucency" because it allows for saying, "I'm not gonna tell you everything -- and for these good reasons." That, sometimes, is a valid and acceptable statement.

I agree with Robert. In my mind, the age of total transparency = "The Jerry Springer Show" and we know how those ended up. There are some things I just don't want to know.

In yesterday's post I gave an example of a newsletter article for employees, explaining (but not explaining) the upcoming raises.

* I said that the percentage was minuscule--but it was legislatively mandated and not really fodder for any elaboration at all.

* I said the calculations were Byzantine. Here translucency was called for. The math shouldn't be foisted on everybody, but should be shared with the few who request it.

* And, finally, I said that the stuff people might reasonably expect to be part of the who-gets-how-much decision-making process, such as major components of jobs--"Do you perform quarterly reviews of the people you supervise?" "Do your people say you communicate effectively?" "Do you actually work the number of hours we pay you for?"--was very subjectively applied to managers and peons.

To me, THIS is where not translucency but transparency was called for. No--make it stronger than that: when a manager or exec makes a decision that's hugely unpopular, has employees foaming at the mouth, and shatters morale, the situation WILL BE transparent, one way or another.

* Either the manager will explain transparently why he chose to bend and break the rules, and the explanation will show that there was indeed a legitimate reason for doing so--or he will lie or not say a word, and it will be transparent that he's a dickhead.

Transparent either way.

For the record, I believe a tavern is better than a blog, and if I could afford to spend all day in the former I would not bother with the latter.

Now to the details:

Robert, I didn't assume the worst. Like every reader of those posts who has been around the block a time or two, I knew such a situation had a 99% probability of being more complicated for these guys than, "Gee, I wanted to be a huge part of this consultancy a year ago but today I just feel like doing other things."

That doesn't mean I think rape and murder and check kiting and other Springer-show-like actions were involved, or that I have any idea who, if anyone, is to blame for the split. Just that, in absence of any concrete information, I go by my experience with such things and I've got a hunch that it's more complicated and likely more painful tthan they made it out.

And when they say they're serenely leaving to pursue other interests, I feel they're winking at me, and I'm winking back at them, but--properly--none of it is transparent.

As for you, Greer, you're exactly right in how you interpret each of those situations, and I think you should write a book for managers, called "The Transparent Dickhead."