Accountability vs. Transparency
Radical transparency is a management method where nearly all decision making is carried out publicly.
All draft documents, all arguments for and against a proposal, the decisions about the decision making process itself, and all final decisions, are made publicly and remain publicly archived. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency)
Why is there a need to have a structure in an organisation, when decisions made “at the top” remains status quo? Do individual member votes count, if the people in power and authority decide to hold “further discussions” and ultimate decide to act against said decision, or to reverse a particular decision?
Hierarchial structures in an organisation, regardless of size, is of utmost importance because it legitimizes the organisation, and provides a clear leader, or leaders, for its followers, or members, to look to for guidance, advice, and to settle and resolve conflicts.
However, for an organisation to be truly legitimate and recognised as such, hierarchial structures are not the only things that would play a part, but should work in tandem with transparency and accountability.
Though the concept of transparency should be perceived as
Transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption. When government meetings are open to the press and the public, when budgets and financial statements may be reviewed by anyone, when laws, rules and decisions are open to discussion, they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_%28humanities%29)
it can be “dumbed down” and seen as a means of holding individuals in positions of power accountable to decisions made by either by said individual, or by a group that includes said individual, without prior knowledge or consultation of other ordinary members of the organisation.
Some people may argue that transparency and accountability should only be important where the decisions made are of great importance, or if there’s money involved in the decision. But I say that’s total bullshit, because irregardless of the position you hold, as long as you make a decision, you make it an open, and a completely transparent decision, explaining to members and committee members alike why you made the particular decision. If you asked for a vote prior to decision making, yet changed your mind after a “discussion” with the committee members, then make that clear and make a statement explaining and detailing the factors that led to a “discussion”, and ultimately, the revamped decision.
It doesn’t matter how important you think your organisation is, or is not. It doesn’t matter how important you think you are, or are not. It doesn’t even matter how much of a difference you think it’ll make, or will not make.
We bitch, whine and complain about how much lack of transparency we have to endure as Singaporeans, and how the government only makes privy information that works in their benefit. How often have we took a step back and examined if we as logical, educated Singaporeans have made this leap of faith in our daily lives, and in the organisations and committees that we dedicate ourselves to?
