Transparency rules OK?
It’s the conspiracy theorist’s favourite event of the calendar this week – the Bilderberg Conference, which depending on your political leaning/grasp of reality is either a global Government in waiting, an orgy of capitalists carving up the world between them, or shape- shifting lizards doing whatever shape-shifting lizards do. But, joking aside, there is something a bit rum about over 100 of the world’s most powerful people getting together behind closed doors and talking.
Or is there?
While I was musing on the conference over my muesli this morning, it struck me that my disdain for the secrecy around Bilderberg was a little hypocritical. Our Corporate Sustainability Mastermind Group prides itself on its adherence to the Chatham House rule, because it allows people to say things that might get them sacked if they were speaking on the record.
Likewise, the world’s markets, political institutions and entire communities can be thrown into turmoil by a single badly worded phrase from one of the great and the good. Is it any surprise they occasionally want to talk freely?
Which brings up an important question – when is transparency good and when is it bad?
How about this as a guideline: facts should be shared, opinions can be private or public, depending on the desires of those who give them.