Transparency and Authenticity: What do they mean for nonprofits?

Photo by Bennecontentos


Sarah Dopp got me wondering about the definitions of these two terms: authenticity  and  transparency.
She notes, "The buzzwords have been floating around a lot lately (in politics, social media, etc), and I realize I don't know the difference between them.  I twittered yesterday that I'd like to see a Venn diagram showing where they overlap and where they don't, and I was met with two brilliant responses."

Jenka Gurfinkle of social-creature wrote:  "authenticity" is about relevance, "transparency" is about defensiveness. the overlap is accidental and uncorrelated.   Emma McCreary of the Tao of Prosperity took a different angle:  authenticity = what is alive in me, transparency = a conscious choice to disclose that because I want to live in that kind of world.

So, I thought I would round up some of the thinking on these two terms of the nonprofit space.   But, first I wanted to check on some formal definitions. A quick trip to the dictionary and Wikipedia:

• Authenticity refers to the truthfulness of origins, attributions, commitments, sincerity, devotion, and intentions.
• Tranparency means open, frank or candid.

A few months N-TEN, an organization that supports the nonprofit technology field, disclosed the results of its internal evaluation to measure success of its programs and invited readers to interpret the meaning.  This disclosure came on the heels of a debate on nonprofit technology blogs about numbers only types of evaluation and how they don't tell the whole story. 

Transparency is not a term the nonprofit world typically associates with grant-making decisions.  There's a movement towards Philanthropy 2.0 which makes the process more transparent.  In fact, it is concept behind Givewell, a philanthropy 2.0 site.   Givewell's goal was to make a thorough analysis of charities (the kind now exclusive to foundations) usable to all donors, large and small – and open the dialogue to anyone.    Recently, one of the co-founders, Holden Karnofsky, had to apologize for being less than open with the public because he hid his identity on an online message board where he asked for ideas on how to choose a charity to support.   The debate in the comments of this post shed some light on the definition of transparency in the nonprofit world.

The "Don't Tell the Donor Blog" has more in a column over the Nonprofit Times called "Our Donors Are Talking - What Are We Afraid of?"

The concept of authenticity in branding and marketing was the theme explored in a blog carnival for nonprofit consultants last July.  As noted on the Seachange blog, "In the uptight and highly risk-averse world  of non-profit communications, it’s sometimes downright scary."  Some of the responses may be useful to Sarah's inquiry:

• Nancy Schwartz offered a framework for looking at the issue of authenticity and how it comes into play in your communications.
• Melanie Schmidt usefully reminds us that authenticity is a process, rather than a list of key messages, and that our ability to “stay real” is being constantly tested.

How would you define these terms as they are applied in the nonprofit world?  How are they the same or different?   

Update:  Reading my feeds this morning, found that authenticity and transparency were the topic in a few other blog posts.  So, adding these here for what it's worth.

How To Teach Marketers to Be Authentic by Scott Monty
The Human Voice
What does it mean to be transparent and authentic?  Jeremiah Owyang

Comments

[Holly]

Beth- This isn't an answer, but another observation. Authenticity is relative and subjective, not absolute as it involves judgement. What I deem authentic may seem inauthentic to someone with a different point of view. Transparency can help authenticity since part of authenticity is honesty. I think lack of transparency can affect your authenticity negatively when transparency is expected (for example, particpants in most online forums expect transparency about each other's identities). However, I think that we judge authenticity without evaluating authenticity all the time. They are interrelated concepts, but both can exist independently of the other.

For nonprofits - we're at a time when donor scrutiny is very high. I think, then, that it behooves our sector to focus on transparency. We need to open our robes and be prepared for criticism. At the same time, authenticity isnot driven solely by transparency. We need to tell the stories of our work, and allow our stakeholders to tell their stories about out our work in ways that will resonate with the values of our stakeholders. That's the art of authenticity.

[Amy Sample Ward]

I completely agree with Holly. The move for nonprofits is to be as transparent as possible and in so doing, the stories that come out, the language and conversations that develop, and the way others champion the causes for the nonprofit is the continually evolving authenticity. The more there is to see/hear/read/understand, the more complete and authentic the picture of the organization becomes. I also think that by opening up, being transparent, that the inclusion of negative public feedback or stories etc. works to make the most complete and authentic view of the organization because everything is in the open, including the response to negative things from the public (or from within). The transparency works to "humanize" (for lack of better word) the organization and prove the authenticity.

Great post, Beth! Thanks for rounding up so many of the points floating around about this.