Social networks have ushered in an era of transparency and, to be frank, our existing organizational structures and political and business leaders often can’t cope with this new reality. A culture of opacity works on the basis that knowledge is power. However, in today’s new paradigm it is the massive distribution of knowledge that creates power… which explains why Assange is possibly one of the most powerful –and feared– men in the world today.

Transparency in organizations eliminates embedded pockets of power and makes boundaries increasingly hazy. When transparency is the order of the day, we witness the blurring of the conventional lines which separate different departments within companies, or companies and society as a whole, or our personal and professional lives.

So, where does the right to privacy end and the public’s right to information begin? In a world where everything (or almost everything) can be known, this dividing line is increasingly fine.

The march of transparency appears to be unstoppable, as does the spread of the Internet. We would thus be well advised to ready ourselves, to be coherent in everything we say and do, and to achieve success thanks to the added value which we bring and not through strategies which belong to another era.

Seen in that light, the future of our companies doesn’t look so bad.

(First published in Spanish in Expansión y Empleo)

We can apply these same qualities to any type of work, regardless of what we do. In the society we live in each person plays a fundamental role in the working of the whole; I cannot understand why we insist in seeking self-fulfilment in climbing up the corporate ladder when possibly we should focus more on what we do, and on finding meaning in carrying out our jobs as if they were a work of art, whether they are management positions, auxiliary functions or we work in a funeral parlour. We are bent on finding meaning outside of ourselves when, very probably, real strength is found within ourselves. This is precisely what differentiates some workers from others: on the one hand, those who really live and enjoy their job and see it as a service to others, as opposed to those who consider it a mere routine. In the troubled economic times we’re immersed in, it’s not so easy to change companies or position. Perhaps this is an opportunity to find fulfilment in the small details of our jobs, whether we’re writing a report, cleaning or managing people.

Departures is also a reflection on death. In the film, death is shown to be a natural event and is presented without melodrama. Although the death of a loved one is seen to be extremely painful for those left behind, the film also conveys how life goes on in spite of this pain. Unlike certain Far Eastern countries, in Spain we tend to be more histrionic when faced with death (up to a few decades ago, people still hired “professional” mourners), and there is a certain taboo associated with it. In the film, however, life and death flow in parallel, silently. It’s really worth seeing, and experiencing.  

The other finalists are:

• Liderazgo en la era de la colaboración
• Optima Infinito
• Jano 2.0
• El blog de los RR.HH.
• José Luis del Campo Villares
• Diversidad Corporativa
• Bitácora RH
• Congestión de personas
• Yoriento

The members of the jury are:
Jaime Montalvo – Former Head of the Consejo Económico Social.
Mayte Sanz – Publisher of the magazine Revista Observatorio de RRHH y RRLL.
Senior Manager – An influential blogger in the field of human resources.
Carlos Martí – Research fellow at the IESE and a blogger at Trompazos en la Red.
Isabel Sancho – Managing Partner of Interban Network
Francisco García Cabello – Director of the radio programmes Foro de RRHH y Líderes.
Helena López-Casares – Publisher at LID Editorial
Ricardo Alfaro – President of AEDIPE Cataluña
Eugenio de Andrés – Managing Partner of Tatum y Director of the Observatorio de la Blogosfera de RRHH.

Once again, my thanks for this recognition.

When something like this happens, we are going up the “ladder of inference”, to use the phrase coined by Chris Argyris. The ladder of inference is a way of explaining one of the principal problems in communication: when one person speaks, the other interprets his words in the light of his own prejudices, past experiences and personal opinions. You see, our brain doesn’t like ambiguity and, when faced with something it doesn’t understand, it tends to look for an explanation. The problem is that it often gets the explanation wrong. Just think how many times we misinterpret emails!

So we need to be very careful how we process information. If we want to go down the ladder of inference rather than up it, we should ask ourselves if our interpretation of what someone says or does really reflects his intention. And if we’re not sure, we would do well to check with the person in question. Unfortunately, many of us unwittingly become Hollywood scriptwriters and create a lurid plot in our minds when the reality is usually much more mundane and simple.