Transparency or TMI? Why More Isn't Always Better

"Starting today, we're implementing radical transparency!" the CEO announced proudly in our all-hands meeting. "You asked for more communication, and we heard you. From now on, you'll be copied on every strategic discussion, included in every decision-making process, and updated on all company movements in real-time."

The room erupted in boisterous applause. Finally, the cold days of information darkness were over.

Three months later came a flood of employee feedback that looked markedly different: "I can't keep up with all the updates." "I'm drowning in notifications." "I spend more time reading about work than doing work."

Sound familiar?

I've witnessed this pattern repeatedly across organisations—the great communication pendulum, swinging from one extreme to the other. It's a fascinating phenomenon that perfectly illustrates how good intentions, when unchecked, can create unexpected new problems.

At the heart of this pendulum lies a fundamental tension: the yearning for inclusion versus the drive to achieve. We see this playing out everywhere—in meetings, email threads, messaging channels, and even work travel decisions. People deeply want to be "in the loop," part of the conversation, included in the journey. Yet simultaneously, they (and their leaders) feel an equally powerful urge to streamline, to remove obstacles, to "get s--t done."

This push-pull between inclusion and efficiency creates its own special kind of organisational tension. When people aren't included, they feel cut off from important contexts and decisions. When everyone's included in everything, progress can grind to a halt under the weight of constant consultation and coordination.

Read: Workplace Communication: Stop Asking “Do You Understand?”

The Push That Starts the Swing

It usually begins with a genuine problem: employees feel left in the dark. They're frustrated by the opacity of decision-making, confused about company direction, and hungry for more context about their work. This creates a groundswell of requests for "more transparency" and "better communication."

Leadership, eager to address these valid concerns, responds with enthusiasm. Perhaps too much enthusiasm. Like a parent overcompensating for past mistakes, they swing hard in the opposite direction. Suddenly, every meeting has detailed minutes shared company-wide. Every project update becomes a novel.

The Physics of Information

Just as a pendulum converts potential energy to kinetic energy and back again, organisations often convert information scarcity to information overwhelm and back again. It's almost mathematical in its predictability.

But why does this happen? Because finding the middle ground is harder than it looks. It requires careful calibration, constant adjustment, and most importantly, an understanding that more information isn't always better information.

The "everything is everything" approach to transparency creates several problems:

1. Signal-to-noise ratio plummets
2. Important updates get lost in the deluge
3. Employee attention becomes fragmented
4. Decision-making paradoxically slows down
5. People start ignoring communications altogether
6. Employees work into the evenings to keep up

Read: Who Controls Your Day? Mastering Email Overload

Finding Your Natural Rhythm

The solution isn't to stop the pendulum—it's to guide it to its natural center. Here's how:

Create Information Tiers: Not everything needs to be shared with everyone. Create clear categories for information distribution:

• Need to know (essential for someone's role)
• Good to know (provides helpful context)
• Optional to know (interesting but not critical)

Build Clear Channels: Designate specific channels for different types of communication and reduce the distribution lists for all of them in the process. For example:

• Email for formal decisions and important updates
• Text or slack for quick questions and informal updates
• Intranet for reference materials and documentation
• Town halls for big-picture discussions

Implement the "So What?" test before sending any communication. Ask:

• What action should people take after reading this?
• What would happen if they didn't receive this information?
• Who specifically needs this information to do their job better?

Share smarter, work better. Ensure transparency that drives action with Happily. Try it today!

The Real Meaning of Transparency

When teams ask for transparency, they're often asking for something deeper than just information—they're seeking authentic connection with their leaders. They want to see the human being behind the decisions, to feel that their leaders are present, genuine, and personally invested in the conversation. It's less about knowing every detail and more about trusting that their leaders will show up as real people, sharing not just what they think, but how they think, what they value, and yes, sometimes even what keeps them up at night.

The goal isn't to eliminate the pendulum swing entirely (that's probably impossible), but to reduce its arc to manageable oscillations. This requires ongoing dialogue between leadership and employees about what information is truly valuable and how it should be shared.

Remember, the opposite of opacity isn't transparency—it's clarity. And clarity comes not from seeing everything, but from seeing the right things at the right time in the right way.

If your organisation is currently at either extreme of the pendulum swing, start small. Pick one area where you can either increase valuable transparency or decrease information overflow. Then watch, adjust, and repeat.

What's your experience with the communication pendulum? I'd love to hear how your organisation manages the balance between too little and too much information.

This was also published on Juliet Funt's LinkedIn.

Join us at the Malaysia Leadership Summit 2025 and discover the latest AI insights transformative success!