While the majority of research promotes the idea of transparency and puts all efforts into refining existing concepts, critical studies emphasize the performativity of measures to increase visibility. The article theorizes the nexus of transparency and secrecy by drawing on Erving Goffman’s frontstage/backstage theory, according to which actors vie to maintain boundaries of visibility by alternating these two types of situations. Using this approach, the article interprets the emergence of new forms of secrecy in reaction to transparency measures as efforts to maintain or create boundaries of visibility between front- and backstage. This perspective is empirically applied to a study on parliamentarian representatives of the Pirate Party of Germany, a political party that tries to be as transparent as possible and vows to live up to this ambition when elected. The study demonstrates that an organization which deprives itself of boundaries of visibility between frontstage and backstage faces obstacles which lead it to eventually introduce such boundaries. This study, therefore, offers an in-depth examination of the limitations of transparency and its unintended consequences.
AlbuO. B.FlyverbomM. (2016). Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Business & Society, 1–30.
2.
AnechiaricoF.JacobsJ. (1996). The pursuit of absolute integrity: How corruption control makes government ineffective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
AustinJ. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
4.
BernsteinE. (2012). The transparency paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57, 181–216.
5.
BirchallC. (2011). Introduction to ‘secrecy and transparency’: The politics of opacity and openness. Theory, Culture & Society, 28, 7–25.
6.
BrighentiA. (2007). Visibility: A category for the social sciences. Current Sociology, 55, 323–342.
7.
CartyK. R. (2004). Parties as franchise systems: The stratarchical organizational imperative. Party Politics, 10, 5–24.
8.
ChristensenL. T. (2002). Corporate communication: The challenge of transparency. Corporate Communications, 7, 162–168.
9.
ChristensenL. T.CheneyG. (2015). Peering into transparency: Challenging ideals, proxies and organizational practices. Communication Theory, 25, 70–90.
10.
ChristensenL. T.CornelissenJ. (2015). Organizational transparency as myth and metaphor. European Journal of Social Theory, 18, 132–149.
11.
CostasJ.GreyC. (2014). Bringing secrecy into the open: Towards a theorization of the social processes of organizational secrecy. Organization Studies, 35, 1423–1447.
12.
CostasJ.GreyC. (2016). Secrecy at work: The hidden architecture of organizational life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
DroriG.MeyerJ. (2006). Scientization: Making a world safe for organizing. In DjelicM. L.Sahlin-AnderssonK. (Eds.), Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation (pp. 31–52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
FensterM. (2006). The opacity of transparency. Iowa Law Review, 91, 885–949.
16.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1971). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
17.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
18.
GondJ. P.CabantousL.HardingN.LearmonthM. (2016). What do we mean by performativity in organization studies? The uses and abuses of performativity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18, 440–463.
19.
HansenH. K. (2015). Numerical operations, transparency illusions and the datafication of governance. European Journal of Social Theory, 18, 203–220.
20.
HansenH. K.FlyverbomM. (2015). The politics of transparency and the calibration of knowledge in the digital age. Organization, 22, 872–889.
21.
HeimstädtM. (2017). Openwashing: A decoupling perspective on organizational transparency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 77–86.
22.
HönigsbergerH.OsterbergS. (2012). Diskurs mit den Piraten. Eine sprachbasierte Lageanalyse und Empfehlungen zu einer Diskursstrategie. Berlin: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.
23.
HoodC. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?Public Management Review, 9, 191–210.
24.
LevayC.WaksC. (2009). Professions and the pursuit of transparency in healthcare: Two cases of soft autonomy. Organization Studies, 30, 509–527.
RingelL. (2017). Transparenz als Ideal und Organisationsproblem: Eine Studie am Beispiel der Piratenpartei Deutschland. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
33.
RobertsA. (2006). Dashed expectations: Governmental adaption to transparency rules. In HoodC.HealdD. (Eds,), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 107–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
SchoenebornD.SchererA. (2012). Clandestine organizations, al Qaeda and the paradox of (in)visibility. Organization Studies, 33, 963–971.
35.
ScottC. R. (2013). Anonymous agencies, backstreet businesses, and covert collectives: Rethinking organizations in the 21st century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36.
StohlC.StohlM. (2011). Secret agencies: The communicative constitution of a clandestine organization. Organization Studies, 32, 1197–1215.
37.
StrathernM. (2000). The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26, 309–321.
38.
TsoukasH. (1997). The tyranny of light. Futures, 29, 827–843.
39.
Van den BrinkM.BenschopY.JansenW. (2010). Transparency as a tool for gender equality. Organization Studies, 31, 1459–1483.
40.
VattimoG. (1992). The transparent society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
41.
WernerM.CornelissenJ. (2014). Framing the change: Switching and blending frames and their role in instigating institutional change. Organization Studies, 35, 1449–1472.
