The Problem With ‘Full Disclosure’ Is That It’s Not

October 29th, 2008 | Comments | Email This Article

A sketch of the human brain by artist Priyan W...

Image via Wikipedia

In this age of transparency, it seems everyone with a voice in the blogosphere or mainstream media feels compelled to “fully disclose” any possible conflict of interest. Here lies the problem: The idea of full disclosure is deceivingly straightforward, yet it’s never unequivocally factual or transparent. In almost every case I’ve witnessed, full disclosure is subjective. Therefore, it’s an oxymoron.

Here’s what is factual: so-called full disclosures are nothing more than intent on the part of communicators to reveal what they think, at the time, to be possible conflicts of interest. That’s a noble deed on the part of an individual or group. But it’s important to remember that human beings are not creatures wired for 100% transparency. That would make life pretty damn inefficient impractical and, probably, impossible. We all have agendas, and to pretend otherwise – through full disclosure – is a fallacy.

At best, full disclosure is an acknowledged attempt to be transparent and reveal conflicts that would make another party distrusting – and, in the process, build trust. But when full disclosure becomes part of our lexicon and a perceived unit of social currency, it becomes subject to abuse. That’s why, at worst, full disclosure is an attempt by communicators to make others believe they are trying to be honest when deceit is at the core. In our world, fact probably lies somewhere in between, most of the time.

As a marketer and shaper of reputation, I’m particularly sensitive to growing and excessive misuse of the term, especially since it’s reached cliché status. I believe transparency is a core tenet of our evolving society. But I also believe the ideal of honesty includes an enlightened citizenship that doesn’t go around self-proclaiming that subjective, attempts at disclosure are actually full and unambiguous. Sometimes they are, but most times they aren’t.

It’s probably best to act in the spirit of full disclosure, but avoid diluting the intention or act by calling attention to the term. As Matthew Hurst said: “research shows that the phrase ‘in fact’ is more used when what follows is opinion; ‘full disclosure’ may be similar!” I agree.

What do you think?

The above morphed into my latest MediaPost column.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Peter_Himler

You are right. The term "full disclosure" has achieved trend status among communications professionals much the same way "authentic communications" has. As you know, FD is a term that has migrated from the halls of the SEC, where it was born as a regulatory guarantee that a company's material news reached all stakeholders equitably, to the non-IR areas of a PR practice. In so doing its meaning has morphed.

In my mind, full disclosure in communications is an aspirational concept, i.e., an ideal that signals a company's desire to do the right thing, to behave ethically and candidly. So for example, as GM hit the skids and chairman Bob Lutz openly blogs about it, he makes a reasonable attempt to disclose what's actually happening. It's an earnestness that was mostly missing in stakeholder communications prior to the age of RSS. Another storied example, albeit dated, may be J&J's decision to allow "60 Minutes" in on its internal deliberations during the Tylenol crisis.

Conversely, when Exxon Mobil spends tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising to tout its environmental initiatives, while at the same time funding its industry trade association to thwart efforts to cure America's addiction to fossil fuels, this would be considered the antithesis of full-disclosure, if not outright hypocrisy.

To me, it matters little whether an enterprise actually achieves "full" disclosure about its motivations, so long as its leadership recognizes the value in doing so. Also, in an age where reputations can be built and broken by the groundswell, the consequences for not opening the corporate kimona are too great to ignore.

maxkalehoff

WOW! Well said, Peter! The key word you mentioned is recognition -- of the
concept and value. I would say the second most important element is an
effort to live up to the aspiration and, in the process, do far more good
than harm.

Peter Kim

I propose adding the phrase "to be honest" into the same category.

kate

reminds me of research showing that use of negations (no, not, never) is a sign of inhibition and constraint...

maxkalehoff

Kate, there's a large, much-needed body of research on the lexicon and
persuasive techniques of the research industry! We should start a running
list of instances and create sort of a lay person's guide to reading between
the lines and deciphering agenda, ambiguity, misinterpretation and
falsehoods. Carl Bialik <http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/> at the WSJ.com
writes a column series dedicated to demystifying research and statistics,
but I don't believe he's ever tackled this most basic issue of semantics.