Brad Rawlins of Bringham Young University, published a study with the intent of creating an instrument to gauge stakeholder perception of transparency. He surveyed employees of a health care organization to see what they thought made an organization trustworthy.

His findings relate to what I have been posting about these past weeks. Transparent organizations should have integrity, respect, and open communication. He also found that organizations could do this in several ways. I will relate a few of them with new social media.

• High participation: Web 2.0 is a wonderful tool when it comes to communication. Whether it’s communicating to your consumers on a social network like Twitter (see the Ford post) or letting employees communicate via podcasts (see the Microsoft post). Participation in dialog with stakeholders shows that you care and that can do wonders for your corporate reputation.
• Substantial information: Are you white-washing the facts, or are you being open? You must provide your stakeholders with the facts they need to know. If you think it is something relevant to them, you can bring it up on your blog (like CEO Paul Levy did about his salary). It also needs to be in clear language that they will be able to understand.
• Accountability: Are you accountable to your stakeholders? By starting a conversation with them online you are. Let their comments go unregulated (within reason) and listen to what they have to say about you. Also of importance is actually following through with results when things do go wrong.

I learned over the course of writing this blog, that transparency and authenticity are crucial elements for any organization. When it comes down to reputation and credibility (as it always will) there is no excuse to not be open and honest. The rules are changing now that more companies are using Web 2.0. There have been some great uses of these new tools and some poor ones. The only way to be successful is to keep trying  and also remember to be truthful while you do it. The truth will always come out, why don’t you use it to your advantage?

Ike Pigott, writer of the blog, Occam’s RaZr wrote a post called, “PR and the Gray Zone.” In it he talks about the role of PR professionals in new social media. He notes that it is hard to know what your role is as a business person online. Especially if you try to be honest and people still want to kick you out of an online conversation because you represent a business.

I think this venn diagram designed by Pigott is an excellent representation of what a PR person should be online. In it the social media professional is transparent, professional and an advocate for their organization. Note that being a “transparent professional” would make you a reviewer and being a “professional advocate” would make you an astroturfer. Where do you fall on this diagram?

Check out this video by Chris Brogan. He reminds us that as business people we should not come off sounding like a used car salesmen. I think it drives home the ideas I have covered today.

To sum up, being transparent and authentic is key when you go online as a business professional. Being upfront with people about who you are and what your motives are will make all the difference. Yes, some people will still be adverse to talking to you because you represent an organization. However, there are plenty of people who want to talk to you because they have an interest in your product. Conversation is key. You must get to know people and figure out their needs to discern whether or not you can fulfill them.

In one example, Scott Monty of Ford Motor Company used Twitter to be openly transparent when a crisis situation arose at the company. According to Ron Ploof’s “The Ranger Station Fire,” (embedded at the bottom of this post). Ford sent a notice to the owner of a Ford fan site, The Ranger Station, to turn over the URL and pay the company $5,000. The owner of the URL posted this information on his website and fans of the site started an uproar.

Through a series of 138 Tweets over 19 hours Monty kept followers of his Twitter account updated on the issues at hand. He asked followers to “retweet” the messages that he posted so that he could reach more people.

More information came out that the site owner  was selling counterfeit goods on the site and that was why Ford had sent the letter. Monty was able to come to an agreement with the site owner and the crisis was dispelled. If you would like to read about it in more depth here is Ron Ploof’s “The Ranger Station Fire.”

You can also listen to this podcast interview with Scott Monty from: For Immediate Release’s The Hobson & Holtz Report. Monty talks in depth about the role of Twitter in this situation.

This is an example of how Twitter can be utilized to reach people quickly and keep them updated as little things arise. By keeping in touch with key publics and letting them know what is going on during a situation, your company shows that it cares and wants to reach a solution. No one can predict when problems will occur, but being able to reach people quickly (like using Twitter), you can put a face to your issues.

Shel Holtz’s article, “A Clear Case For Transparency,” describes one example of his frankness. In one post Levy asks the one question you would never expect to hear from a CEO, “Do I get paid too much?”. He actually outlined on the blog how much he was making and a how the board of directors had come to this sum. While his salary is a matter of public record, it is refreshing to see a CEO who is willing to raise the topic himself and offer it up for discussion. While there were a wide range of comments to this post, most people were just impressed that he was willing to talk about it.

Which brings me to the point that candidness is an important part of transparency. Levy’s salary was already public knowledge. But the way in which he handled the topic himself, was impressive. It is not enough for companies to put important information out there to their stakeholders, the delivery is just as important. You could put up salary information, but if it is confusingly organized, or poorly explained, how is this helpful to stakeholders?

By explaining how the decision was made for his salary, Levy gave stakeholders a clear understanding of where the money was going and why. By opening this up as a topic of discussion on his blog, he is truly transparent. Looking at his blog as a whole, the sheer magnitude of posts he writes a month and the candid way he writes is very impressive. CEOs should use his blog as an example to look at, if they are thinking about blogging, or taking their blog to the next level.

While Dunder Miflin may be fictional and the transparency involved extreme, it is a valuable lesson to businesses. Show your company in a candid way, with the good and the bad, and your stakeholders are more likely to respond in a positive way.

In a real example, that ties transparency and authenticity to new social media, Wired’s “Operation Channel 9,” discusses how Microsoft employees are utilizing podcasts. These employees post interviews of engineers talking about their jobs and new products. These videos are largely unedited, and anyone can see them and comment on them. This shows an open and frank view of Microsoft as a company. It is a great example of how a company can utilize social media to be transparent and get employees involved in the process.

Employees are a great tool for this effort because they give credibility to the messages. The information is coming from the inside of the company and not from the corporate communications department. Not only do employees have the knowledge to talk specifically about what they do, they can give a behind-the-scenes look at what the company does.

See Microsoft’s Channel 9 project here.

New social media (blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc.) provide corporate communicators with excellent tools to build and uphold their company’s reputation. Transparency and authenticity are important in maintaining a company’s reputation. Especially today, where trust in business is waning, it is important for companies to be open with the public.

Merriam-Webster gives good working definitions of the two words:

• Transparent: without pretense or deceit; readily understandable; business practices characterized by visibility or accessibility to information
• Authentic: deserves to be accepted or believed to be based on fact; true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character

On this blog I examine  case studies related to corporate transparency and authenticity in new social media.

Please feel free to comment!