The balance between private and shared information is often not as much of a gray area as we believe it to be. Thus, rather than keep information heavily guarded, we should just learn to balance it better.

I know this because I am an intensely private person when it comes to my personal life, and I’ve seen benefits of freeing up a little of this intensity. It’s not really as dramatic as it initially seems when we share a little more about ourselves, especially knowing that most people don’t pay too much attention to others’ personal lives anyway.

It’s also not as dramatic as it may feel when we realize we’ve come across some private information that should stay private. Really, the only thing we need to do is respect that privacy. Basic information is only power to those who don’t feel powerful enough from community and/or peer respect.

 

If we can learn to effectively manage information in our personal lives, why not in professional arenas?

Just as the balance is often more black and white than it seems in regards to personal information, professional information management is often more black and white than we want to admit. There’s information that can and should be shared, and there’s information that can’t (legally, morally, etc). Knowing the difference is usually just a matter of education and/or experience. Practicing the difference is matter of integrity and trust.

Along the same lines though, it is often also a matter of acting upon lessons learned. The benefits of asking direct, personal questions after trust is established far outweigh indirect go-around information seeking (which harpoons trust and ignites suspicion). We know this, and yet we still see avoidance of direct communication and information disclosure in professional arenas across the spectrum. Many of these examples do not have to be gray areas, but they often are debated as such.

Between the constant questioning of the usual suspects (large corporations, government) or the newest sensationalized headline (think individual “cover ups”), we’re never really surprised anymore at intentional misinformation or new revelations. We’re also not surprised at the motives behind those doing the “uncovering”. It’s sad that we’re not surprised, that we’re accustomed to mistrust due to communication and the sensationalism that follows. It’s sad because it’s wrong, but also because every time an imbalance of information or miscommunication happens, it opens the door for a future full of issues.

When we witness or even contribute to intentional misdirection, poor communication and do not provide disclosure, it makes everyone involved so much more likely to mistrust even those with the best of intentions. It’s good to question things. It’s not so good to question things repeatedly, then refuse to believe something proven true. Think about well-intentioned private and public programs, government assistance and great medical science that all take a hit from past problems with information. These past issues were not “gray areas”. They were opportunities to be open, sharing and direct, and when the opportunities were missed, distrust and sensationalism were bred.

One of the best things anyone can do for the future is model honest, open communication and information sharing in their profession alongside modeling the respect of private information. Usually (not always, but usually) we know the difference between the two. Growth, healthy competition and effective collaboration are the future, and they depend on understanding the balance and walking the walk. We can’t walk the walk if we’re always fenced in.