Safety Dance: Transparency vs Safeguard

People want to know what’s going on. Unfortunately, in the military, knowing the “why” is not always possible. Whether due to urgency, national security, or lack of perspective, military members at varying levels will not know everything. A young private probably won’t know why they need to conduct night patrols, but they do it. A general might not know why troops are angry that they can’t wear their hair in a ponytail, but they still endorse the policy allowing it. A healthy mix of trust and empathy are required among the ranks to better enhance mission accomplishment and a cohesive culture.

Leaders at every level walk a fine line between sharing enough to build trust and withholding enough to keep missions, people, and capabilities safe. This balance isn’t about secrecy for secrecy’s sake—it’s about prioritizing the right information at the right time for the right reasons. When leaders over-explain, they risk overwhelming their people or inadvertently revealing details that compromise operations. When they under-explain, they risk creating confusion, frustration, and disengagement. Mastering the balance requires understanding not just what information exists, but what information is actually useful to the person receiving it.

The challenge is compounded by the nature of military operations, where context is often classified, compartmented, or rapidly changing. Even the most transparent leaders can’t provide details they themselves don’t have access to, and sometimes the full picture only becomes clear months or years later. Service members live inside a system where the “why” may be unknowable in the moment, but the “what” and “how” remain urgent and non-negotiable. Accepting that uncertainty—without letting it erode trust—requires cultural maturity from leaders and followers alike. With the recent government shut-down, leaders, at all levels, were left with nothing but questions and excuses when trying to explain to federal employees and military members that, “Yes, you are a truly valued member of the team,” but that they might not be paid. The worst part was not knowing when the stress and thrash would end. Transparency was only as good as the information available. 

This is where empathy becomes just as important as authority. A leader who acknowledges the frustration of not having answers shows respect for their people’s desire to understand. Simply saying, “I know this doesn’t make full sense right now, and I get why it’s frustrating,” can prevent resentment from festering. Likewise, service members who extend empathy upward—recognizing that their leaders are navigating pressures, constraints, and blind spots they may never see—help sustain a culture rooted in professionalism rather than cynicism. Empathy doesn’t grant full understanding, but it builds patience, and patience builds cohesion. 

Finally, transparency isn’t a single event—it’s an ongoing behavior. Leaders earn credibility not by revealing everything, but by consistently sharing what they can share, explaining what they can’t when appropriate, and demonstrating through action that they’re acting in their team’s best interest. Followers contribute to transparency too by asking questions respectfully, offering feedback, and engaging with the mission even when information is limited. 

Transparency and safety are a two-way street. It’s not just about top brass pushing information down. The broad core of entry-level staff and managers are needed to reciprocate the gesture. When both sides commit to this balanced approach, the result is a force that executes with confidence, communicates with clarity, and trusts one another even in the foggiest of circumstances.