In his speech following the Challenger Disaster, Ronald Regan (often referred to as the granddaddy of web 2.0) said…
‘I’ve always had great faith in and respect for our space program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don’t hide our space program. We don’t keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That’s the way freedom is, and we wouldn’t change it for a minute.‘
It was one of the greatest speeches of our time and this is my attempt to make it relevant to recruitment. Here it goes.
Regardless of what granddaddy says, it’s not possible for any one person or organization to be 100% transparent.
If, while conducting research for the space program, the US had discovered an opportunity to nuke Russia and if news of that discovery would have led Russia to aggressive nuclear behavior toward the US, would granddaddy have been transparent?
Do you think he would have been, ‘up front and in public,’ with the news? I doubt it. Thankfully.
So, if organizations can not be completely transparent but transparency does help to recruit more relevant talent(especially millennials) and breath life into employment brands…then my question is…
What is the proper balance of transparency and what’s fair for an employer to keep to itself?
Fyi, no one ever referred to ronald regan as the granddaddy of web 2.0…that was al gore…again…kidding…he invented the internet. 
Ok…go back to work…but be sure to tell me what you think is the right level of transparency for an employer.
Should an employer publicly recognize achievements within the ranks?
With search engine sourcing becoming so hot and teams like Job Machine training groups of recruiters, is that too much transparency for a company that wants to keep its talent?
What’s the right balance?
