Description
attached is the reading discussion with pdfs readings. Also attached is two other separate discussion questions.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
525202
research-article2014
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206314525202Journal of ManagementSchnackenberg, Tomlinson / Organizational Transparency
Journal of Management
Vol. 42 No. 7, November 2016 1784–1810
DOI: 10.1177/0149206314525202
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Organizational Transparency: A New Perspective
on Managing Trust in Organization-Stakeholder
Relationships
Andrew K. Schnackenberg
Case Western Reserve University
Edward C. Tomlinson
West Virginia University
Transparency is often cited as essential to the trust stakeholders place in organizations.
However, a clear understanding of the meaning and significance of transparency has yet to
emerge in the stakeholder literature. We synthesize prior research to advance a conceptual
definition of transparency and articulate its dimensions, and posit how transparency contributes
to trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. We draw from this analysis to explicate the
mechanisms organizations can employ that influence transparency perceptions.
Keywords:
transparency; disclosure; clarity; accuracy; stakeholders; trust; trustworthiness
In the wake of a seemingly endless stream of corporate malfeasance, transparency is often
invoked as a salve for the many maladies that accompany distressed relationships between an
organization and its stakeholders through its presumed ability to reestablish stakeholder trust
in the firm (e.g., Bennis, Goleman, & O’Toole, 2008; Fombrun & Rindova, 2000; Jahansoozi,
2006; Tapscott & Ticoll, 2003; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). In
fact, researchers who have called upon the transparency concept in organization-stakeholder
relationships have consistently suggested its role in creating, maintaining, or repairing trust,
Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Deborah E. Rupp. We would like to thank
Corinne Coen, Susan Case, David Kolb, Ronald Fry, and the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful
comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Corresponding author: Andrew K. Schnackenberg, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Attn:
Organizational Behavior Department, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
1784
Schnackenberg, Tomlinson / Organizational Transparency 1785
either explicitly (Akkermans, Bogerd, & van Doremalen, 2004; Fleischmann & Wallace,
2005; Pirson & Malhotra, 2011; Rawlins, 2008) or implicitly (e.g., transparency in financial
markets is important for enabling trust in the market system, even if the term trust was not
mentioned directly; Bansal & Kistruck, 2006; Bhat, Hope, & Kang, 2006; Bushman, Piotroski,
& Smith, 2004; Leuz & Oberholzer-Gee, 2006; Perotti & von Thadden, 2005).
To date, however, researchers touting the benefits of transparency in this context have
relied on cursory assertions rather than rigorous theoretical development. Furthermore, to the
extent that it has been examined empirically, the lack of a theoretically grounded consensus
on the transparency construct is manifested in a patchwork of ad hoc operationalizations
across areas of academic inquiry (see, for example, discrepant measures of transparency
from Awad & Krishnan, 2006; Kaptein, 2008; Pirson & Malhotra, 2011; Rawlins, 2008;
Walumbwa et al., 2008). In sum, the state of the extant literature on transparency suggests
that it is not clear exactly how the construct should be conceptualized, how it relates to managing trust in the organization-stakeholder relationship, or how organizations manage it.
Therefore, in this article we have three objectives. First, we integrate the literature on
transparency across academic disciplines to develop a more complete understanding of its
meaning and dimensional structure. This analysis reveals that transparency is not a unidimensional construct as most researchers have commonly assumed. Rather, it is composed of
three specific dimensions: information disclosure, clarity, and accuracy. Second, we turn to
Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman’s (1995) model of trust to describe the impact of each dimension of transparency on organizational trustworthiness and stakeholder trust in the firm.
Finally, we use this framework to describe several concrete mechanisms available to organizations to manage transparency.
The Meaning and Dimensional Structure of Transparency
There is currently very little convergence about the fundamental meaning of transparency.
In an attempt to address this, we begin by synthesizing existing literature to compose a parsimonious definition of transparency. To examine the literature, we conducted a thorough
search to trace common conceptualizations of the construct in line with suggestions from
Shepherd and Sutcliffe (2011). An initial scan of the literature produced more than 500 articles that referenced to transparency. While the large number of articles reaffirms the broad
relevance of the transparency concept, it at the same time makes a thorough review of the
transparency discourse prohibitive within the scope of a single article. Hence, to reduce this
number to a more manageable set, we retained only those articles that were published in
academic journals with a relatively high impact factor (>3 for 5-year impact) or were cited
more than 50 times through Google Scholar. Next, to include the practitioner voice, we
scanned major practitioner-focused journals, including the Harvard Business Review and
Sloan Management Review, to include articles that discussed transparency. We also reviewed
several trade and professional books that discussed transparency.
Definition of Transparency
In the organization sciences, early reference to transparency can be traced back to discursive accounts of organizational roles and social conformity in the mid-20th century (e.g.,
Coser, 1961). Transparency remained a tangential concept most often summoned by
1786 Journal of Management / November 2016
Figure 1
Number of Articles From Selected Business Journals Referencing
Transparency (1990 to 2009)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
‘90
to
‘93
‘94
to
‘97
‘98
to
‘01
‘02
to
‘05
‘06
to
‘09
Note: Articles were included if the word transparency or transparent was included in the title, abstract, or text.
Articles were extracted from the following journals: Academy of Management Review (106, 16%), Journal of
Finance (97, 15%), Journal of Accounting Research (95, 14%), Strategic Management Journal (66, 10%), Academy
of Management Journal (64, 10%), MIS Quarterly (60, 9%), Journal of Marketing (51, 8%), Administrative Science
Quarterly (48, 7%), Organization Science (45, 7%), Information Systems Research (27, 4%).
organization theorists as a rhetorical device until the late 20th century. In the past two
decades, a more formal interest in transparency has taken shape across domains of organizational research following a deluge of prominent corporate scandals (e.g., Enron in 2001,
WorldCom in 2002, Lehman Brothers in 2008, and Madoff Investment Securities in 2009).
Reflecting the increasing usage of the term among researchers, Figure 1 shows the number
of articles from selected business journals referencing transparency in 4-year intervals from
1990 to 2009.
Over the years, organization scientists have offered a number of definitions of transparency, with varying degrees of specificity. A review of common definitions of transparency is
presented in Table 1. Overall, information systems researchers have investigated transparency in the context of business to consumer relationships and digital markets (e.g., Granados,
Gupta, & Kauffman, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010; Zhu 2004); organizational behavior researchers have explored transparency in the context of organizational trust development, organizational identity, perceptions of leadership, and organizational culture (e.g., Clair, Beatty, &
MacLean, 2005; Fombrun & Rindova, 2000; Kaptein, 2008; Pirson & Malhotra, 2011;
Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, & Oke, 2011); researchers of finance and accounting have examined transparency in the context of financial markets, corporate disclosures, and monetary
policy decision making (e.g., Bushman et al., 2004; Madhavan, Porter, & Weaver, 2005;
Winkler, 2000); marketing researchers have studied transparency using related terms, such as
product disclosure, in the context of consumer responses to nutrient and drug risk information (e.g., Cox, Cox, & Mantel, 2010; Howlett, Burton, Bates, & Huggins, 2009); and social
Schnackenberg, Tomlinson / Organizational Transparency 1787
Table 1
Definitions of Transparency
Study
Study Domain
Akkermans, Bogerd, &
van Doremalen (2004)
Strategic alliances
Bloomfield & O’Hara
(1999)
Bushman, Piotroski, &
Smith (2004)
Eijffinger & Geraats
(2006)
Flood, Huisman,
Koedijk, & Mahieu
(1999)
Granados, Gupta, &
Kauffman (2010)
Jordan, Peek, &
Rosengren (2000)
Kaptein (2008)
Financial markets
Larsson, Bengtsson,
Henriksson, & Sparks
(1998)
Madhavan, Porter, &
Weaver (2005)
McGaughey (2002)
Organizational
governance
Monetary policy
Financial markets
Electronic markets
Financial markets
Organizational
culture
Strategic alliances
Ensuring visibility within the organization to allow
employees to properly modify or correct behaviors
Openness toward partners
Financial markets
The ability of market participants to observe information
about the trading process
The extent to which members of a population (a) have
identified or are aware of an intellectual asset’s
existence and (b) understand the intellectual asset’s
underlying principles
The availability of adequate information to verify or
assess the data exchange taking place
The degree to which the size and direction of the current
order flow are visible to the competing market makers
involved in setting prices
The extent to which a communication medium facilitates a
clear or unobstructed communication exchange
The ability of the principal to observe how the agent
behaves and the consequences of the agent’s behavior
The degree to which an individual’s objectives are readily
apparent to others
Leader behaviors that are aimed at promoting trust
through disclosures that include openly sharing
information and expressions of the leader’s true thoughts
and feelings
The degree of visibility and accessibility of information
Strategic
management
Organizational
governance
Financial markets
Potosky (2008)
Organizational
governance
Organizational
governance
Negotiations
Vorauer & Claude
(1998)
Walumbwa, Luthans,
Avey, & Oke (2011)
Zhu (2004)
Sharing data regarding current order and production
statuses as well as plans and forecasts with various
supply chain partners
The real-time, public dissemination of trade and quote
information
The availability of firm-specific information to those
outside publicly traded firms
The extent to which central banks disclose information
that is related to the policy-making process
The ability of market participants to clearly see
outstanding price quotes
The availability and accessibility of market information to
interested parties
The disclosure of timely and accurate information
Nicolaou & McKnight
(2006)
Pagano & Roell (1996)
Prat (2005)
Definition of Transparency
Leadership
Electronic markets
Note: Articles were included if they explicitly defined transparency and were published in academic journals
(empirical or theoretical) with a relatively high impact factor (>3 for 5-year impact) or were cited more than 50
times through Google Scholar. Working papers, books, practitioner-oriented articles, and industry publications were
omitted from this list.
1788 Journal of Management / November 2016
psychologists have explored transparency in the context of negotiations (e.g., Garcia, 2002;
Vorauer & Claude, 1998; Vorauer & Ross, 1999).
These diverse applications suggest that, at its core, transparency neither exists within any
single domain of research nor operates within any one context of study. Rather, the emerging
consensus is that transparency can exist across contexts and domains of research. In addition,
our review shows that most (but not all) managerially relevant applications of transparency
exist at the organization level of analysis, specifically in relation to organization-stakeholder
relationships (internal stakeholders, such as employees; see Kaptein, 2008; Walumbwa et al.,
2011; as well as external stakeholders, such as shareholders, governments, and society; see
Bloomfield & O’Hara, 1999; Bushman et al., 2004; Flood, Huisman, Koedijk, & Mahieu,
1999). Accordingly, a useful definition of transparency must be broad enough to enable theorists from a variety of management traditions to incorporate it into their study designs. At the
same time, it must be specific enough to meaningfully inform management practice. For
these reasons, we do not distinguish between contexts of study, levels of analysis, or domains
of research in our definition but in the sections that follow, we adopt an organization level
conception of transparency to draw examples from the literature that help us uncover its core
theoretical properties and to elaborate on the aspects of its structure that are most relevant to
management practice. Prior to this, however, we offer a definition of transparency and discuss the meaning of its individual components.
Transparency is the perceived quality of intentionally shared information from a sender.
This definition synthesizes a number of concepts from the literature. First, the emerging
consensus is that transparency is about information. With rare exception, transparency is seen
as a critical element of knowledge sharing such that increased transparency brings increased
awareness, coherence, and comprehensibility to information exchanged between two parties
(Pagano & Roell, 1996). For instance, Kaptein (2008) suggested that transparency is required
to ensure that information about organizational conduct can be used by employees to modify
or adjust their behaviors. In the context of external stakeholder relations, Madhavan et al.
(2005) investigated transparency as the quantity of information released by financial institutions toward market participants. Similarly, Nicolaou and McKnight (2006) examined transparency in the setting of electronic information exchanges between organizations and
stakeholders.1
Second, most conceptualizations of transparency involve intentionally shared information
such that ad hoc or unsystematic variations in information quality are not indicative of transparency. Rather, organizations hold the capacity to deliberately wield information in ways
that increase or decrease transparency. For example, Rosengren (1999) has discussed different types of information held by financial firms that, if intentionally released, would increase
the transparency in the banking system. In central banking, Winkler (2000) contends that
more deliberate openness and clarity of monetary policies would increase the transparency of
communications toward economic stakeholders. Others have similarly examined the factors
that lead firms to intentionally materialize various types of information into speech acts,
contracts, policies, and other communications toward stakeholders (e.g., Bloomfield &
O’Hara, 1999; Granados et al., 2005; Larsson, Bengtsson, Henriksson, & Sparks, 1998;
Winkler, 2000). These studies are based on the premise that, in absence of intentionality,
Schnackenberg, Tomlinson / Organizational Transparency 1789
transparency includes aspects of information sharing (e.g., unintended miscommunications)
that dilute the practical and theoretical usefulness of the concept.
Third, our review suggests that transparency is a perception of received information,
although organizations have the capacity to influence that perception through their information-sharing behaviors. To illustrate, some researchers study transparency as a perception of
information that can be attributed to the senders of that information at different levels of
analysis (e.g., toward another human being, a group of individuals, or an organization; see
Larsson et al., 1998; Kaptein, 2008; Vorauer & Claude, 1998). Bushman et al. (2004), for
example, have defined transparency as the availability of adequate information to stakeholders. Flood et al. (1999) have defined transparency as the ability of actors to clearly see outstanding price quotes. In electronic markets, Zhu (2004) has investigated transparency as the
degree of visibility and accessibility of information. These views suggest that transparency is
most appropriately conceptualized as a perception of information.
Finally, transparency perceptions vary according to the perceived quality of information.
The importance of information quality is highlighted either explicitly or implicitly across
virtually all of the studies we reviewed. For example, transparency has been measured as the
perceived quality of information shared by an organization toward its employees (Rawlins,
2008), the perceived quality of information gathered by an organization about its customers
(Awad & Krishnan, 2006), and the perceived quality of information shared by an organization toward its external stakeholders (Bushman et al., 2004). These studies operationalize
transparency in a variety of ways. Nevertheless, they carry with them a core belief that information quality is central to transparency.
Gaps and Inconsistencies in the Literature
The apparent convergence around an emergent definition masks gaps and inconsistencies
in the literature that hinder systematic theorizing of the transparency construct. We view
these gaps and inconsistencies as opportunities for moving toward a more integrative theory
of transparency. To develop these opportunities, we organize existing gaps and inconsistencies into three concerns that we believe are critical to resolve for a more theoretically meaningful and empirically useful conception of transparency. These include (a) concerns about
the meaning of information quality, (b) concerns about the effects of transparency on organization-stakeholder relationships, and (c) concerns about the mechanisms that influence transparency perceptions. In the spirit of viewing each of these concerns as opportunities, we
develop new theory that allows our ideas to be tested in future empirical research.
First, empirical applications of transparency have suffered from a great deal of conceptual variation as to what is exactly meant by information quality. Operational indications
of transparency vary significantly across studies and include increased disclosure of information (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2004; Bushman et al., 2004; Eijffinger & Geraats, 2006),
greater truthfulness and accuracy of information (e.g., Jordan, Peek, & Rosengren, 2000;
Walumbwa et al., 2011), enhanced visibility and accessibility of information (e.g., Kaptein,
2008; Madhavan et al., 2005; Pagano & Roell, 1996; Prat, 2005; Zhu, 2004), increased
clarity and understandability of information (e.g., Flood et al., 1999; McGaughey, 2002;
Potosky, 2008), reduced information concealment (e.g., Granados et al., 2010; Larsson et
al., 1998), and enhanced timeliness of information (e.g., Bloomfield & O’Hara, 1999;
1790 Journal of Management / November 2016
Jordan et al., 2000). Across these studies, some researchers favor combining all possible
dimensions as formative inputs into a single additive transparency construct (e.g., Bushman
et al., 2004; Khanna, Palepu, & Srinivasan, 2004; Patel, Balic, & Bwakira, 2002). Others
argue that transparency is best viewed as an underlying latent construct without necessarily
defining its dimensional structure (e.g., Kaptein, 2008; Pirson & Malhotra, 2011; Rawlins,
2008; Walumbwa et al., 2008). This state of affairs reveals that while researchers are
clearly interested in transparency, there is no consensus as to exactly what factors differentiate higher-quality information from lower-quality information. As with any construct,
meaningful insights about transparency will emerge only if scholars have a clear understanding of its definition and dimensional structure (e.g., Granados et al., 2010). Yet the
lack of convergence around a unified explanation of the aspects of information quality that
matter most to transparency has prohibited researchers from advancing a systematic theory
of its antecedents and consequences.
Second, there is general consensus that the likelihood of observing a positive effect of
organizational transparency on performance outcomes (Berggren & Bernshteyn, 2007;
Bernstein, 2012; Christmann, 2004; Larsson et al., 1998) is dependent in part on how transparency influences the firm’s relationship with its stakeholders. For instance, many theorists
have contemplated an association between organizational transparency and stakeholder trust
in the firm to theorize more generally about its effects on firm performance outcomes (e.g.,
Akkermans et al., 2004; Pirson & Malhotra, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2011; Williams, 2005).
However, the majority of this work is characterized by cursory assertion rather than rigorous
development of precisely how these constructs are theoretically related. Empirical examination is even less common and is characterized by mixed evidence as to how transparency
actually influences trust. One study found compelling evidence of a positive relationship
between organizational transparency and stakeholder trust (e.g., Rawlins, 2008), while
another found only marginal support for the proposition that transparency is positively related
to trust (e.g., Pirson & Malhotra, 2011). These incongruent findings suggest a need for further theoretical clarification of the transparency-trust relationship.
Third, no formal consensus has emerged to describe how organizations actually manage
transparency perceptions. To illustrate, Bernardi and LaCross (2005) examined transparency in the context of code of ethics disclosures on organizational websites. Bernstein
(2012) suggested that transparency varies according to the extent to which organizations
use encryption (e.g., industry jargon) and shift visibility (e.g., private vs. open offices).
Still others have examined transparency as a function of the methods used by organizations
to convey information related to organizational governance and financing to stakeholders
(Bhat et al., 2006; Bushman et al., 2004). Overall, the lack of a formal integration of the
transparency literature has limited our ability to articulate the mechanisms available to
organizations to manage it.
The Meaning of Information Quality
Theorists have come to disparate conclusions as to the aspects of information quality that
are most important to conceptualize the dimensional structure of transparency. Though most
theorists have measured transparency as a unidimensional construct (e.g., Pirson & Malhotra,
2011; Rawlins, 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2008), discordant applications across domains of
Schnackenberg, Tomlinson / Organizational Transparency 1791
Table 2
Overlap of Transparency Dimensions
Similar Conceptualizations Discussed
Study
Akkermans, Bogerd, &
van Doremalen (2004)
Bernstein (2012)
Briscoe & Murphy
(2012)
Bushman, Piotroski, &
Smith (2004)
Eijffinger & Geraats
(2006)
Granados, Gupta &
Kauffman (2010)
Kaptein (2008)
McGaughey (2002)
Nicolaou & McKnight
(2006)
Philippe & Durand
(2011)
Potosky (2008)
Street & Meister (2004)
Vorauer & Claude (1998)
Walumbwa, Luthans,
Avey, & Oke (2011)
Zhu (2004)
Disclosure
Clarity
Accuracy
Disclosure, openness
Not considered
Reliability
Observability
Encryption (language that
only selected others can
interpret)
Clarity, simplicity
Accuracy
Not considered
Disclosure, availability,
timeliness
Disclosure, openness
Not considered
Not considered
Not considered
Validity (related to audited
information)
Precision (of political and
economic information)
Distortion (related to the
display of inaccurate
information)
Not considered
Not considered
Disclosure, availability,
accessibility
Simplicity
Visibility, observability
Disclosure,
observability
Availability, relevance,
timeliness
Disclosure, timeliness
Clarity
Simplicity,
understandability
Interpretability
Simplicity
Not considered
Accessibility
Accessibility
Disclosure, openness
Clarity, simplicity
Understandability
Not considered
Clarity
Precision (of information
related to the firm’s
environmental impact)
Not considered
Correctness
Accuracy
Not considered
Visibility, accessibility
Not considered
Accuracy
Accuracy, reliability
Note: Articles were included if they explicitly discussed the characteristics of transparency and were published in
academic journals (empirical or theoretical) with a relatively high impact factor (>3 for 5-year impact) or were cited
more than 50 times through Google Scholar. Working papers, books, practitioner-oriented articles, and industry
publications were omitted from this list.
organizational research have cultivated a proliferation of views regarding the most appropriate conceptualization and imply the need for a multidimensional structure. A closer examination of this collective body of work suggests that researchers have conceptualized transparency
in three primary ways: disclosure, clarity, and accuracy. Based on a review of articles that
discuss the underlying characteristics of transparency, Table 2 illustrates that common conceptualizations are subsumed within the perception of these three dimensions. This leads us
to expect that each of these dimensions is a distinct critical factor that explains a fundamental
aspect of transparency. Specifically, each contributes a unique perspective on the meaning of
information quality such that together they provide a parsimonious foundation upon which to
study transparency.
1792 Journal of Management / November 2016
Disclosure. Disclosure is defined as the perception that relevant information is received in
a timely manner (e.g., Bloomfield & O’Hara, 1999; Williams, 2008). In the literature, a variety of studies advocate for the use of disclosure as a central dimension of transparency (e.g.,
Bushman et al., 2004; Finel & Lord, 1999; Madhavan et al., 2005; Nicolaou & McKnight,
2006; Pagano & Roell, 1996). Pirson and Malhotra (2011), for instance, measure transparency explicitly as a stakeholder’s perception that firms openly share all relevant information.
Perotti and von Thadden (2005) suggest that perceptions of transparency are built around a
stakeholder’s ability to gather needed information about a firm. These views are based on the
premise that inaccessible information delimits the stakeholder’s ability to gain a full picture
of the organization (Zhu, 2004).
The concept of disclosure implies that information must be openly shared for it to be considered transparent. Yet disclosure is more than the open transfer of all available information.
It also warrants a careful consideration of the most relevant information to disclose. To illustrate, Williams (2008) has suggested four specific processes associated with disclosure: analysis (e.g., target audience identification), interpretation (e.g., determination of relevant
information), documentation (e.g., encoding of information), and communication (e.g., distribution of information to internal and external audiences). Of these, only documentation
and communication are associated with the open release of information. The other two processes (analysis and interpretation) are needed to differentiate relevant information from
irrelevant information.
A number of theorists have discussed similar constructs as pivotal to transparency using
several synonyms. Granados et al. (2010) have used the words availability and accessibility
to describe fundamental aspects of transparency. Others have used the words visibility
(Kaptein, 2008) or observability (Bernstein, 2012) to describe transparency. Similarly,
Bloomfield and O’Hara (1999) have used the term real time to define transparency. All of
these are similar to disclosure in the current conceptualization. Whereas visibility, availability, accessibility, and observability refer to aspects of open information sharing, the term real
time suggests timeliness in our definition.
Intriguingly, we also found that information relevance was only passively incorporated
into many conceptualizations of transparency. Most researchers define transparency narrowly (e.g., as trade and quote information in finance or as information regarding current
order and production status in operations) such that information relevance is assured by the
construct definition. This is clearly problematic for developing a systematic theory of transparency because not all researchers operating from diverse theoretical backgrounds will converge on a common conception of relevant information. To remedy this, we specify the
importance of relevance while leaving space for variation in empirical application by emphasizing the broader concept of disclosure (e.g., Williams, 2008).
Clarity. Clarity is defined as the perceived level of lucidity and comprehensibility of
information received from a sender. In the literature, Winkler (2000) contends that organizations must present information more clearly for it to be considered transparent. Similarly,
Street and Meister (2004) have argued that organizational information must be understandable for it to be considered transparent. Daft and Lengel (1986) have found that a major
problem for managers is a lack of informational clarity rather than a lack of sheer data. The
importance of clarity is based on the premise that information consisting of industry jargon
Schnackenberg, Tomlinson / Organizational Transparency 1793
(Nicolaou & McKnight, 2006), unknown foreign languages (Larsson et al., 1998), and complicated mathematical algorithms (Granados et al., 2010) cannot be considered transparent
even if it is highly disclosed. For instance, in the realm of financial markets, Flood et al.
(1999) have argued that information must be disclosed and clear for market participants to
fully ascertain its value.
Clarity differs from disclosure in that it is largely about the seamless transfer of meaning
from sender to receiver rather than the amount or relevance of information shared.
Accordingly, clarity relies on the skillful use of linguistic devices, such as pragmatics, to
achieve higher levels of understandability (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). For
instance, within uttered representations, clarity is a function of the perceived comprehensibility of both locutionary and illocutionary acts (Austin, 1962; Chomsky, 1995). Locutionary
acts refers to the phonology of the utterance and its ostensible meaning, and illocutionary
acts refers to the intended meaning of the utterance (Schiffer, 1972). Clarity is also a function
of the proper application of verbal paralanguage, such as grunts, giggles, laughs, and sobs
(Wilson, 2000); nonverbal paralanguage, such as turn taking (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson,
1974); and the interpretation of nonverbal behavior related to body movements (Birdwhistell,
1970). In written communication, clarity is a matter of perceived grammatical and semantic
coherence. For example, the use of abstract images (e.g., company logos) can delimit an
observer from disentangling signifiers (words, images, and symbols) from denotata (what
signifiers stand for) to render the image less clear (e.g., a picture worth a thousand words is
veritably unclear).
While most theorists explicitly name clarity as a significant component of transparency
(e.g., Flood et al., 1999; Potosky, 2008), several researchers have used closely related terms
to describe the construct. McGaughey (2002) has used the term understandability to conceptualize clarity. In the context of information quality, Miller (1996) has used the term coherence to describe the degree to which information avoids confusion and promotes
understanding. Nicolaou and McKnight (2006) have similarly used the term interpretability
to refer to the perceived quality of information shared between two parties, and Briscoe and
Murphy (2012) have suggested that information must be simple enough to be easily apprehended. These terms are similar to our conceptualization of clarity. Specifically, clarity
implies that received information will “hang together” in a way that limits ambiguity.
Accuracy. Accuracy is defined as the perception that information is correct to the extent
possible given the relationship between sender and receiver. The importance of accuracy
stems from the perspective that information cannot be considered transparent if it is purposefully biased or unfoundedly contrived (Walumbwa et al., 2011). However, accuracy does not
imply that information must be completely correct ex post for it to be consider
