Civil Air Control- an exemplification of transparency within the organization
The requirement of transparency is now more than a fad, it takes the form of a genuine sociological claim, which must question the concept of legitimacy: in short, what does it mean to be transparent? Transparency forms the basic ethics of communication, even though, what is normally transparent is not normally seen.
The notion of transparency refers to information processing and knowledge in organizations: should they share information and with whom? Transparency can thus be considered at two levels: internally within the organization itself, or in relation to the environment in the narrow sense (the company's shareholders, donors to an association) or broad sense (public opinion) as such. Connections with issues of power are obvious: in the words of Crozier, controlling areas of uncertainty, that are non-transparent, is a source of decisive power in an organization.
The issue of transparency can be treated according to two ethical perspectives. Either one considers that making public internal information ("publicity" according to Kant) is good in itself, and in this case, it requires absolute transparency as a rule of operation. It then remains to define the vectors, if we need to institutionalize transparency. Or we think that full transparency is dangerous insofar as everyone is not ready to hear everything: the political dimension of organizations should be taken into account and accordingly recommended to exercise prudence in their exercise of transparency. In addition, the transparency of the organization may lead to a complete transparency of the individual members of the organization, which would be subject to full control, so we must also question the link between transparency and control.
Finally, transparency may be diverted and used by the organization itself or some of its members, eager to show transparency to keep the gray areas within the organization in their favor.
It seems that transparency is a particularly important issue in organizations that operate at "high risk", such as aviation safety (especially civil air traffic control). What is the degree of supervision of staff (mandatory or optional procedures, very little normative or framed)? We must address these issues in light of relationships between agents (between controllers on the one hand, between pilots and controllers on the other): What is the actual application of regulatory procedures? Is there reluctance or rather a propensity by agents (pilots or controllers) to "defer" incidents? What is the role of power issues, psychological factors and organizational culture in this process?
Transparency is now taking the form of a genuine sociological claim, beyond the fads.The reality and depth of this phenomenon are rooted in a philosophical tradition and extremely powerful behavior, based on two assumptions:
1.It is possible to control everything and make everything transparent by eliminating areas of uncertainty and opacity.
2.Therefore, there is an optimal technique, a better way to frustrate the opacity and allow effective control over things.
This demand for purity and virtue in all meets along the way another philosophical tradition, which emphasizes the irreducibility of uncertainty and acceptance of partial opacity. Such an intellectual attitude, which distrusts the Kantian requirement of purity, will be prudent, and not transparent, a cardinal virtue - in the tradition of Aristotelian thought.