When To Share

Ideally, organizations should conduct themselves with openness. They should be transparent in terms of decisions, policy positions and connections with others. Their leaders should have nothing to hide. On the surface, I do not know many who would disagree with that sentiment. Yet there are scenarios when and where openness is not ideal. An obvious example is the federal government. They wrestle with national security issues that most concede should not be made public. For instance, mum's the word when it comes to our plans to fight terrorists. And, if I am not mistaken, Coca Cola still has yet to disclose its recipe for coke.

Nevertheless, the question of how open an entity should be and where the line is drawn between what the public has a right to know and what should be kept secret remains a viable one; one that is worthy of debate. One professional that should be at the table whenever that discussion occurs is the communicator. Many who subscribe to the Public Relations of America's code of ethics would argue on the side of disclosure or openness. At the same time, they are in the business or protecting their client. Does that sometimes involve withholding information? You bet. So, how and under what circumstances does one reconcile such opposite values?

I wish I had a clearcut answer. Perhaps if lives are at stake is a good reason to keep information from the public. What about the sale of property? Many agree with that, too. But what about the tax returns of a public figure? As we know from the current presidential campaign, not every agrees on that one. Professional communicators walk a fine line between protecting their client and serving the greater good that is society. In attempting to choose, communicators should encourage their client to conduct themselves in the context of others. After all, this is how communicators should base their behavior. What is in the best interest of those with who they are to connect?