The Value of Transparency
The often overlooked virtue of over-looking
Why transparency?
Transparency is often an overlooked value in many organisations, especially when it relates to policy and decision making. Many organisations take a top-down approach, evaluating and enforcing rules from the top, later passed down to be carried out. It is not uncommon to hear complaints relating to the management not understanding ground sentiment, or how new policies constantly make life harder for others. This can be seen whenever the government increases the minimum age required to withdraw money from the Central Provision Fund (CPF). The problem often occurs when there is a lack of understanding between different stakeholders within the organisation. People affected by the policies might not always have a complete picture of the different factors and alternative solutions taken into account when implementing these policies, while the people implementing them might not be able to fully assess the side effects of those affected. This is something we do not want to have in SUTDAA, and we believe that transparency is the first step in bridging that gap.
Being valued feels great
I first experienced a culture of transparency during one of my internships at a local startup. As part of its culture, everything that happened within the company was openly shared with all employees, including the interns, on a regular basis. Transparency was doled out at varying levels through multiple avenues. Monthly town-hall meetings would detail the company’s runway, burn rate, sales and marketing numbers, as well as any roadblocks the company faced. The CEO would explain his rationale and concerns regarding major decisions, and allowed ample time for employees to ask questions or provide alternative solutions. Meeting minutes between the upper management and the company’s board of investors were available for employees to read, and sales pitches were even recorded to ensure that it was a fair representation of the company, agreed upon by everyone. We felt like we were part of a team constantly building towards success. Not just a cog in the machine. The CEO encouraged people to challenge his opinions and ideas, and in turn we felt empowered to contribute to meaningful discourse which would eventually shape the company’s future. This is the type of culture we aim to build for the alumni association.
How do we start?
The first step to achieving this goal is, amusingly, this document, and others like it. We want to formalise the thoughts, ideas, and values that govern the way we make important decisions. By having these written down and agreed upon, it ensures that all of us on the exco are functioning on the same page. It also clearly identifies our main priorities as an association. Especially since the SUTDAA is still in its infancy, and we are only the second batch of exco, we want to lay the foundation for the future batches to build upon. Sharing our thoughts opens us up to new ideas from others that challenge the way we operate, with each opposing stace cultivating a better AA. We are fully aware that there are many things we do not have a complete grasp of, sometimes not being able to consider every possibility, but we are always willing to learn and to grow. So we hope this encourages an open discussion about the way we work.
The second step is something that isn't new or groundbreaking, but we believe it to be a cornerstone of transparency - and that is through making our meeting minutes publicly available. The main purpose this fulfils is to provide accountability to our main stakeholders - the alumni. Minutes would keep the alumni up to date on discussions we hold with external parties, detailing actionable tasks and promises made. If, for some reason, we do not follow through, the minutes can be used as a check and balance to hold us accountable. Hopefully over time, this can also act as a trust building exercise to show that we are working in the alumni's best interests. And again, reiterating the first point, these also exist to help identify places in which there might be disagreements on the way things are being done. How we facilitate these discussions would lead us to our third step.
We want transparency in the form of frequent two way communication between the exco and the alumni. It is pretty easy to disseminate information from a top down manner, but the ball usually drops when it comes to the converse. The one thing that turns me off from giving feedback is that there is hardly ever a clear indication that anything is being done, or if it was even read in the first place. We want the way we handle feedback to be as transparent as possible. To achieve this, we need to fulfil three criteria. One, to acknowledge the problem, two, to identify possible solutions, and three, to work on implementing said solutions. This is very similar to the flow of a developmental sprint, which is why the medium we are choosing to implement this is a kanban board. For those unsure about what a kanban board is, you can read about it here. This helps track different issues, the person working on them, and how far along it is coming. In certain scenarios, we might also reach out personally if we need more clarification about the problem at hand. If, however, the feedback is irrelevant or beyond the scope of our capabilities, we will try our best to provide our reasoning in the kanban to at least let the person know that they are being heard. Ideally, if any alumnus feels that there is a task they are passionate about and can provide assistance, we'd be glad to work together in building the SUTDAA.
Nothing is perfect, I know
Now although I've been droning on about the benefits of transparency, there are many pitfalls that might end up causing more harm than good. The first thing to acknowledge is that enforcing transparency will ultimately slow down progress to a certain extent. We all have full time jobs, and with limited capacity in our free time, organising and cultivating these documents is an opportunity cost to working on other AA related matters. But as we mentioned earlier, we believe that we should take the time to lay the groundwork. We would rather build these structures and processes before rushing in head first into doing events. Another concern is that not everyone will evaluate the benefits and risks of certain decisions equally. A worthwhile venture to us might seem like a waste of time to another if, for example, both parties have different views on its benefits. This is where the open line of communication comes in handy.But at the end of the day, there will definitely be issues where not everyone can see eye to eye, and we will ultimately make the decision that we deem best for the alumni.