Whether we like it or not we are all judged one way or another. The real issue is whether talent-management initiatives should be transparent or clear as mud?

For many companies, keeping talent programmes a closely guarded secret is a tough and costly process, while others have managed to create the deception so well that not even the top five per cent of their talent populations are aware that such programmes exist.

One of the dangers of overexposing the talent process is that when individuals are not selected for a senior level role or promotion, both they and their colleagues are left wondering why. In some instances, this has led to disharmony and distrust of the entire talent process. On the other side of the coin, lack of transparency can lead to uncertainty lower down the company hierarchy, with employees worried about what will happen to the business when talented individuals retire.

I believe that exposure and transparency are the partners of good governance. Recently, I had a conversation with a leading business name in the pharmaceutical arena who argued that if the talent-management process was to be ‘totally transparent’ then surely it should be open to the scrutiny of investors, external partners, suppliers and even competitors. I don’t agree with his point entirely, but it does raise questions about how far transparency should go.

I am sure that many organisations will find a middle ground between being openly transparent and secretive. For example, as many companies are utilising a form of nine box matrix on which would-be leaders are evaluated on a three-by-three axis (showing potential and performance), they could be completely open about who is on the talent programme and how it works without revealing to individuals where they or their colleagues are ranked on the matrix.

Is this a slippery cover-up approach? Perhaps, but maybe the risks of being totally transparent are simply too great.