When we provide business ethics training, we tell employees to behave as if their doing would be featured on the front page of their local newspaper.

But then, when one of them is terminated for wrongdoing, we refrain from sharing the case with other employees. We invoke the fear of lawsuits, the need to negotiate a separation agreement, privacy concerns, or the distraction of having other employees discuss the matter.

These reasons are sometimes valid but they should be used exceptionally. Sharing is educating employees and protecting those who don’t recognize the pitfalls. Sharing is deterring other employees from doing the same thing. Sharing is an act of transparency that forces you to commit to be better. Sharing is an act of vulnerability that builds trust.

There is no need to use real names or locations when sharing these stories – cases can be anonymized. Of course, a few people will connect the dots. But it’s often a small price to pay in exchange for all the benefits.

This post is the second in a series devoted to my reading notes and thoughts on the essays contained in The Culture Book, Volume 1. This essay is by the team at Buffer, a social media management platform.

Radical transparency means that we proactively default to transparency. We don’t ask “Can we be transparent about this?” Instead, we ask “What could go wrong if we are transparent about this?” Calendars, financial data, statistics, etc. are shared with all employees. And a big chunk of that is also shared with the public.

Generally, transparency builds trust, which leads to better communication and teamwork, which leads to a better work environment, happier employees, and better results. Transparency with the public can also be very good for your brand and recruiting the right people.

We share our financial data with employees and the public because we believe that the dollars we spend tell a story about what we value.

When we can’t be transparent about something, we are very transparent about why we can’t be.

Some caveats about transparency:

• Timing is important. In some cases, the law or decency might require that we delay a disclosure.
• Constructive criticism is best provided in private (but praise can be public).

For radical transparency to work, it has to be part of the culture:

• Everyone needs to opt in when they join. In fact, the concept is discussed at the interview stage.
• Once on board, everyone
  • gets a “Culture Buddy”, someone who is there to help them acclimate to the culture. Culture Buddies have weekly meeting to discuss culture challenges;
  • gets a culture guide, a living document that explains culture-related decisions made over the years;
  • is asked to set up one or two 30-minute calls with other employees to get to know each other.
• The goal is not to assimilate newcomers into the culture. It is to learn about how the newcomers will contribute to the culture.

It is in the best interest of employees to do what is expected of them. Thus, whether we realize it or not, they watch our every move and word to understand what is important to their leaders. What we say about ethics and compliance and how we make decisions will impact employees’ behavior.

Rather than keeping them guessing, the ethical leader will share the decisions she has made. A great way to do this is to hold an open forum where employees can ask question about the ethical dilemmas they face. These meetings can be in person, over the phone, or via webcast. The leader will open the meeting with a story of a recent dilemma and how it was resolved, and then open it up for questions about the story or any other issue.

When done on a regular basis, these meetings send a clear message about the importance of doing the right thing. The associated transparency builds trust in the leadership and the lessons provide guidance to the employees.

Today, think of an ethical decision you made recently. Consider the best way to share that decision with your team. Then take the plunge. It may be one of the best meetings you’ve had all year.

When I tell people that I strive to write a short blog post every day, I am often asked where I find the inspiration.

My job is such that it, alone, could be my muse. But I do rely on other sources as well. One of them is a list of bookmarks saved in a folder titled “Thought-provoking” in my web browser. From CNN.com’s homepage to Wikipedia’s “On this day…”, I often find a kernel of an idea.

One of my bookmarks is the results page of a Google search for news related to corporate culture. As a Canadian by birth, today’s top result caught my attention: “What of CBC‘s strange corporate culture?” Based on the facts made public to date, it seems that the news organization fired one of its reporters for writing a book without getting the proper approvals. The move appears harsh considering what we know about the case and the way CBC handled previous matters.

Which brings me to this post and the topic of transparency. With all the communication tools available to managers and business leaders today, I find it deplorable that most don’t take advantage of them. When they do communicate with their team, they usually stick to financial and operational matters. Once or twice a year, perhaps they’ll remind people to complete their ethics training – but they won’t share their perspective on the training itself (that would be outside their scope of work). Few are those who ever talk about culture, policies, or controls. Fewer still open up about the problems they face and how they make decisions and the actions they take to implement those decisions. If these topics were discussed openly, if employees could see how the Machine works, imagine how different the culture would be and how fewer violations would occur.

And how a journalist might still have a job.

At a family gathering last night, I explained my job this way to a distant cousin: “I help our employees answer the question ‘Should we?’ after others have answered yes to the question ‘Can we?'”

I don’t know enough about the airline industry to explain why a passenger was dragged out of a United flight yesterday. But as an Ethics & Compliance Officer and a frequent flyer, I would love to read a statement from United addressing the following questions:

“Here is why we can and should

• Overbook our flights, and then
• Give seating priority to our employees over paying passengers, and then
• Use the police to forcibly remove random passengers.”

If United follows a traditional PR model, we are likely to only get answers to the question “Can we?”

But if United wants to step into the new world of transparency, authenticity, vulnerability and trust, it will also answer the much more difficult question.

* From United’s shared purpose statement