Managing Opacity: Information Visibility and the Paradox of Transparency in the Digital Age

Organizational transparency is in vogue. When technologies make it possible for information, decision processes, and behaviors to be visible to others, actors and organizations will presumably be forced to behave more responsibly because they can be held accountable for their actions. In this article, we question the theoretical assumption that higher visibility results in more transparency. We distinguish between transparency and visibility and offer a conceptualization of visibility as the combination of three attributes: availability of information, approval to disseminate information, and accessibility of information to third parties. The management of each of these attributes independently or jointly contributes to the relationship between visibility and transparency. Our discussion surfaces a phenomenon we call the “transparency paradox,” in which high levels of visibility decrease transparency and produce opacity. The theorization of this transparency paradox and the mechanisms through which it operates have important implications for theory and practice surrounding the role of technologies in organizational action in the digital age.

[1]  E. Eisenberg Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication , 1984 .

[2]  Ling Xia,et al.  The interplay between interpersonal and electronic resources in knowledge seeking among co-located and distributed employees , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[3]  David Krackhardt,et al.  Cognitive social structures , 1987 .

[4]  M. Bazerman,et al.  Decisions without blinders. , 2006, Harvard business review.

[5]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences , 1999 .

[6]  H. Martin,et al.  Equal treatment under the law , 2004, Nature.

[7]  P. Griffin,et al.  Going Green: Market Reaction to CSR Newswire Releases , 2012 .

[8]  Leslie A. Perlow,et al.  Finding Time: How Corporations, Individuals, and Families Can Benefit from New Work Practices , 1997 .

[9]  J. Doh,et al.  NGOs and Corporations: Conflict and Collaboration , 2009 .

[10]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility , 2014, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  Joep Cornelissen,et al.  Bridging Corporate and Organizational Communication: Review, Development and a Look to the Future , 2011 .

[12]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  The Contingent Effects of Transactive Memory: When Is It More Beneficial to Know What Others Know? , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[13]  P. Leonardi,et al.  Social Media as Social Lubricant , 2015 .

[14]  Tal Samuel-Azran,et al.  Political information repertoires and political participation , 2016, New Media Soc..

[15]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  How to schedule a cascade in an arbitrary graph , 2012, EC '12.

[16]  Lars Thøger Christensen,et al.  Peering into Transparency: Challenging Ideals, Proxies, and Organizational Practices , 2015 .

[17]  J. Fountain Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change , 2001 .

[18]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Managing Knowledge Networks , 2002 .

[19]  S. Gray,et al.  Factors Influencing Voluntary Annual Report Disclosures By U.S., U.K. and Continental European Multinational Corporations , 1995 .

[20]  Mikkel Flyverbom,et al.  Sunlight in cyberspace? On transparency as a form of ordering , 2015 .

[21]  Howard Rheingold,et al.  Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution , 2002 .

[22]  J. David Johnson Managing Knowledge Networks: Designing knowledge networks , 2009 .

[23]  Sarita Albagli,et al.  Memory Practices in the Sciences , 2008 .

[24]  Anne Morris,et al.  The problem of information overload in business organisations: a review of the literature , 2000, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[25]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , 1979 .

[26]  W. Wiegand The Amherst method : The origins of the Dewey Decimal Classification Scheme , 1998 .

[27]  L. Li Technology designed to combat fakes in the global supply chain , 2013 .