‘Tranparency’ is a word that is used a lot across all sorts of sectors of society: industry, politics. It’s the same in football, and in fan engagement. It’s something that since 2018 has been used as one of the three measures of the Fan Engagement Index.
The reason I included transparency as a measure was quite simple: Fan engagement is something that should have a direct affect on how clubs act and what they do, including the products or services they provide, or their behaviour towards fans. If something changes, we need to know, and that’s where transparency comes in. Publishing the proceedings of meetings is the principal way this is measured, and means that actions and promises can be tracked. That’s a very important thing. But the word has all sorts of connotations to the way that football clubs operate, especially as we enter an era of independent regulation.
I’m not going to get into the weeds of the actual issues that we might be talking about, but sometimes we need to be wary of what we mean by the term. Ultimately, football clubs like other businesses (which they are in practical terms), need to be able to have some degree of privacy to do their work. I include FABs and other fan representatives in that too.
One of the things that can be tricky when navigating this area is ensuring that staff and particularly those within the structures of fan engagement, including the Fan Advisory Board (FAB) or similar, are in a position to be able to think, whether to deal with a particular issue such as ticketing, or an approach to an equally contentious issue. I’ve been talking about this and issues like it quite a lot recently. See the recent article on ‘Strategic Silence’.
I don’t advocate trying to hide bad or unpopular decisions so that they can be foisted on an unexpecting fanbase. It’s more that sometimes football clubs need to be able to do things without being upended by the glare of publicity.
One of the difficulties is the electoral ‘mandate’. I’ve experienced this directly and indirectly (those I’ve advised). Often with democratically elected boards, its elected members will claim a particular mandate, having stood on this or that issue. ‘The xxxxxx must be transparent and accountable’, or ‘matters must dealt with transparently’. All well and good, but are they in the structure or spirit of the way the organisation works for a start? Yes, it’s part of electoral politics that these things will happen, and you can’t really expect anyone to stand on a ticket of ‘Vote for me, I don’t have a view on anything’. You need to be able to explain your values, principles, perspective to a watching electorate.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that what someone pledges can be implemented, specifically, or generally. It’s up to them to ensure that what they pledge or promise is in-line with what the organisation can actually achieve. Someone could stand on a manifesto of dropping the price of beer in the main stand to £1 a pint, but where’s that going to get you when the figures don’t stack up?
The pressure to respond on the part of clubs, those tasked with fan engagement, FABs and similar bodies, whether in person, or frequently, virtually, is phenomenal sometimes. The ubiquitous WhatsApp groups, social media, even sometimes in-person (though far less now I’d wager). And in an era of political double speak, the pressure is even greater.
Transparency in business – in football – is absolutely a fundamental good. After all, the lack of it over many decades is one of the reasons that we’re going to have a independent regulator for football. The persistent hiding and covering up of information from fans, asset stripping, the moving about of money and other assets without disclosure, even the moving of stadiums or locations without proper discussion has been endemic in the business and is partly what got us here.
A study discussed in the Harvard Business Review by Ethan Bernstein suggests strongly that the truth about the effectiveness of transparency for employee performance is nuanced. He begins by saying that, ‘“Transparency” is a watchword in management these days, and it’s easy to understand why. After all, if people conduct their work in plain view, won’t they be more open and accountable? Won’t they flag and fix problems more easily, and share information and their good ideas more freely?’ But he then goes onto say that privacy is ‘just as essential’ for business performance.
‘“Transparency” is a watchword in management these days, and it’s easy to understand why. After all, if people conduct their work in plain view, won’t they be more open and accountable? Won’t they flag and fix problems more easily, and share information and their good ideas more freely? (Ethan Bernstein, Harvard Business Review)
His studies, undertaken in a number of different countries and business environments, show that privacy can help to increase innovation from staff and teams. Although these studies apply to business employees and teams in relation to management’s role in surveilling what staff are doing, I think they do point to something we might be wise to pay attention to in respect of football clubs.
I’m arguing for space, for time. I want to see clubs, FABs, fan representatives, those who look after fan engagement at all levels of a club, to be able to think, discuss, reflect, have time. We must not mix-up transparency with constant communication. Sometimes there isn’t anything to say, sometimes there is but it’s not the right time. We need to be comfortable in saying that.