Intrenion

Pattern: Selective transparency

Information is shared in ways that protect certain interests while preserving deniability.

Situation

  1. In this condition, information about decisions, performance, or risks is unevenly shared across stakeholder groups.
  2. In this condition, official communications present technically accurate statements that omit contextual details relevant to interpretation.
  3. In this condition, reports and dashboards highlight selected metrics while other available data is not displayed.
  4. In this context, accessing detailed operational information requires navigating hierarchical approval or formal request processes.
  5. In this condition, different audiences receive partially overlapping but non-identical accounts of the same issue.
  6. In this condition, public statements and internal discussions differ in scope and level of disclosure.
  7. In this condition, language in communications relies on qualifiers and broad framing that allow multiple interpretations.

Assessment

  1. This occurs because organizations face simultaneous pressure to appear transparent while protecting legal, competitive, or political interests.
  2. This occurs because decision-makers are exposed to downside risk from disclosed problems but face limited direct costs for withholding non-mandated context.
  3. This occurs because disclosure standards are defined by minimum compliance thresholds rather than by comprehensive completeness.
  4. This occurs because hierarchical structures concentrate control over what is classified as material information.
  5. This occurs because communication channels are mediated by legal and public relations functions that prioritize risk containment.
  6. This occurs because internal incentives reward message discipline and reputational management more consistently than candidly exposing uncertainty.
  7. This occurs because fragmented information systems allow selective aggregation and presentation of data to different audiences.

Consequence

  1. Without a decision to change disclosure boundaries, information asymmetry between groups will persist, reinforcing existing power differentials.
  2. Without a decision to expand contextual completeness, stakeholders will continue to rely on inference and informal networks to fill gaps.
  3. Without a decision to alter incentive structures around transparency, message discipline will remain prioritized over full exposure of uncertainty.
  4. Without a decision to redefine what qualifies as material information, selective aggregation and framing will continue to shape perception.
  5. Without a decision to accept the legal or reputational risks of fuller disclosure, curated communication practices will remain structurally dominant.

Decisions

  1. We decide to state explicitly when the information we share is partial or constrained because this gives us a clear boundary for our own accountability instead of presenting summaries without qualification, and accept that this may draw attention to gaps others prefer to leave implicit.
  2. We decide to refuse to relay or endorse communications that omit material context known to us because this gives us protection from being tied to selective narratives instead of forwarding or repeating the message as given, and accept that we may be excluded from sensitive discussions.
  3. We decide to document our own decision rationales and the information available to us at the time because this gives us traceable evidence of our basis for action instead of relying on evolving collective memory, and accept that written records may later be scrutinized or politically inconvenient.

Direct formulations

  1. I will explicitly state when the information I share is partial or constrained, and I will not present it as complete.
  2. I will not forward or repeat communications that omit material context I know unless that context is included.
  3. I will keep a written record of my decision rationales and the information available to me at the time of each decision.