Transparency in a World of Ambiguity

Our world is increasingly ambiguous, which means that what causes what or what risks will follow a given choice are not often clear.

For example, a seven-word tweet—“Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.”—by a general manager of a U.S. basketball team created unanticipated consequences not only for himself but for NBA players doing exhibition games in China, for the NBA relationship with China, for U.S./China trade negotiations, for politicians expressing opinions about their support of American values, and for difficult debates about national sovereignty versus universally shared values.

Choices having unanticipated consequences is not new. What is new is the transparency of the choice-consequence pattern. Choices and their consequences are more visible to larger audiences, sometimes multiplying the consequences. Also new is the pace at which a seemingly simple personal choice (e.g., to post a tweet) quickly can go viral to become an organizational, national, international, and societal issue.

Increased transparency and ambiguity affects how today’s leaders operate their organizations. I recall years ago that a company decided to reward their salespeople in northern Europe not only with salary but with cars. At the time without transparency, other salespeople around the world little-noticed this tailored reward. But if this company offered this reward in the social media world today, as soon as northern European sales representatives received a car, sales representatives worldwide would expect (and demand) a similar perk.

Dozens of similar choices leaders make have unanticipated and transparent consequences. For example:

• Should the CEO (or senior business leader) join a political roundtable to have access to influence policy even when the lead politician advocates practices contrary to the CEO’s personal and organizational beliefs?
• Should a company personalize an employee’s rewards (e.g., work from home, flexible hours)? Likewise, should a company offer unique discounts to selected customers to solicit their business?
• Should an employee (or a leader) have the right to make personal statements about political, social, or religious beliefs, and/or to actively participate in public events to advocate for these personal beliefs?
• Should personal posts on Facebook, Instagram, and other social media be used in making hiring, promotion, or other organization decisions?

Ambiguity exists in each of these cases when consequences and risks of choices are not clear. Transparency multiplies the impact of this ambiguity, making it even more difficult to manage. In the well-known VUCA logic conceived by the U.S. military to recognize and manage choices in volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous times, leaders were taught to “resolve” ambiguity and clarify the consequences and risks of choices. At times ambiguity should be resolved with clarity (e.g., when there is a clear desired outcome, when choices can be directly linked to consequences), but often in the ultra-transparent world, “resolving” ambiguity needs to be supplemented by learning to “navigate” it.

I suggest the following tips for navigating ambiguity.

1. Recognize that choices have unintended consequences and risks. Often leaders make decisions acting as if they are isolated and discrete events. Exploring the second, third, and fourth levels of possible consequences of a particular choice in a transparent world may help the one making the decision. One could ask, “If I (as a leader) make this promise to a customer, investor, or employee, what will happen when that promise is made public?” Or, “If I (as a leader) choose to participate in outside-of-work personal activities, how will I respond when those personal choices become publicly known?” When making a speech, setting and implementing a policy, and interacting with employees and customers, leaders should be attuned to the subsequent consequences.
2. Learn to accept and navigate paradox. Ambiguity often implies paradox. Paradoxes exist in all parts of our lives: work/life balance, long-term/short-term perspectives, divergence/convergence thinking, top-down/bottom-up governance, purpose/profit objectives, etc. Often leaders are taught to “manage” these paradoxes. We believe they should be navigated where both viable choices may be made public, then leaders learn to navigate between the choices. In the NBA tweeting and subsequent debate, a navigate-able paradox may have been to acknowledge that a country (China, in this case) has a sovereign right to govern, and a leader (the general manager) has a personal right to articulate a set of values. Both beliefs can co-exist. Navigating the paradox of ambiguity is often more about the process of recognizing differences and working together rather than trying to impose one “correct” answer on someone else.
3. Make choices based on deeply held values, not polling numbers. If one makes choices to chase popularity, he or she will enter an unending circle of spinning without making progress. But when one makes choices based on values and what one wants, negative consequences may be recognized and accepted as part of the choice. Enes Kanter, a Turkish basketball player, has spoken out against the current Turkish regime and received harsh consequences, which are painful but palatable to him because his activism is based on his values.
4. Defend without being defensive. Over the years, I have had (generally) well-intended colleagues critique and sometimes mispresent my work. For a long time, I tended to ignore the critics, thinking that the misrepresentations would go away. Often, they did not. I have now learned to respond as objectively as possible to the critiques, to try to learn from their comments, and to defend my ideas without being (too) defensive. In a world of transparent ambiguity, some will misrepresent or fail to understand the choices made. As much as possible, defend the choices without being defensive.
5. Be patient. A visible leader signed an amicus curiae support document for a highly charged U.S. court case on a particularly sensitive issue. Employees in his organization publicly criticized him for taking this public and political stand given his visible role in the community and organization. He decided to let the employee concerns ride without immediately responding. The good news about the pace of change in today’s world is that within a day or two, the news cycle moved on and his comments were no longer attracting attention.

Some would like to hide, deny, or avoid the inevitable transparent ambiguity in our personal and work worlds. Others want to resolve ambiguity to harness it. Hopefully, by navigating ambiguity, business and HR leaders can continue to make choices that enable them to progress.

How do you handle the ambiguity in your professional and personal life?