John C. Havens, my co-author, and I presented a session last Friday at the New Media Expo on the subject of our new book, “Tactical Transparency,” which is due out in November from Jossey Bass. Early indications (as represented by the tweet shown here) suggest the session was pretty well received. The relevance of transparency to the expo is based on the book’s focus: the use of social media to promote organizational transparency.

Ours is not the first book to address transparency. I read several, including “The Naked Corporation” by Dan Tapscott and David Ticoll, as part of my research for the book. All of the books—and other materials—define transparency pretty much the same, although they may use different words. Which is why I find it interesting that some seem to be appropriating the word as a synonym for authenticity.

Over on her terrific marketing blog, Michelle Greer posted an item in which she calls the idea of transparency in marketing “hilarious,” “a buzz word to use if you want to sell books or get paid to speak.” Which, of course, I do. But her point is that you’re not transparent if you despise the product you’re trying to help a company sell. (By way of example, she suggests a lack of transparency in selling Hummers when your personal philosophy leans toward the green.)

One of the comments to the post, from P.J. Brunet, suggests that transparency came into vogue after some fake blogs were exposed. The fact is, transparency (in the U.S., at least) became mandated by law after companies like Enron and WorldComm imploded partly due to their opacity (which is, by definition, the opposite of transparency). The doors and windows were shuttered, nobody could see what was going on, and ethics-challenged leaders were able to engage in business practices that cost shareholders their investments and employees their jobs and retirement savings.

Contrary to musings of some critics, transparency does not mean full disclosure; the very idea is just silly. You can’t be “transparent” about, say, your employees’ medical histories (a HIPAA violation) or confidentiality agreements. A couple definitions, though, help clarify what it is:

• The extent to which a financial market is characterised by prompt availability of accurate price and volume information. Transparency is a good thing because it helps create a fair and efficient market for all participants.—Financial Guide
• Transparency is a measure of how much information you have about the markets where you invest and the corporations whose stocks or bonds you buy.—Morgan Stanley
• Open, comprehensive and understandable presentation of information.—ACLA
• The process by which companies disclose all possible information, a practice that boosts employee morale and performance, facilitates business partnerships, and helps responsible corporations attract socially conscious consumers and investors.—Tapscott and Ticoll (the emphasis on “possible” is mine)

Wikipedia defines “radical transparency” as “a management method where nearly all decision making is carried out publicly.”

For the purposes of “Tactical Transparency”—which deals with the use of communication tools in order to promote transparency beyond that which is required by law—as the degree to which an organization shares its business strategy, practices, and processes by making information available through accessible leaders and employees. By virtue of such transparency, it should be clear that business practices and processes are driven by the organization’s culture and a shared set of values.

None of which has anything to do with Michelle’s noble belief that marketers should be passionate about the products they’re selling. In a response to a comment I left to her post, Michelle argues that she’s “asking people to take transparency a step further by being passionate about what they do.”

It’s not that I disagree with Michelle’s sentiment; not in the least. People should be passionate about what they do. (I know I am.) But I worry about getting squishy with definitions. I know it’s just a matter of semantics, but when you’re trying to drive a company’s culture toward greater transparency—openness about the processes and practices that drive business decisions—turning a clearly defined word into a catch-all label for other organizational and personal attributes just muddies the waters.

By the way, there’s a blog tied to book and—being completely transparent—we have made the audio of all our interviews available on BlogTalk Radio, where most of them were conducted; we’re continuing to conduct interviews post-publication, just to keep the discussion going.