A plea for less 'honesty', more candour
"When you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself," he wrote.
"Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
Last week the OECD felt it was time for a bit of pure wind. It headed a media release, "Structural reforms more important than ever for a strong and balanced economic recovery". Really? Let's invert the rhetorical body language and leave the literal meaning intact. The OECD thinks that structural reforms have always been less important than they are today. Less important in addressing the economic ailments of the 1970s? Less important in the industrial revolution?
This kind of verbal flatulence is everywhere. And it matters.
One of the South Australian public sector's "core values" is "honesty in all that we do and say" Really? Like any modern public service, South Australia's is part of the relentless spin that is eating our world. Government agencies are integral to "performing" of government, helping politicians with tendentious sound bites proclaiming the wisdom of the government.
In doing so departments will deploy managerialist euphemism. Arrangements will be "improved" and "enhanced". "Best practices" will be adopted which, we will be told, will make us more competitive, whatever more sober reflection might suggest.
This will frequently extend to the routine petty deceptions involved in "repackaging" previously announced policy and the spinning of details that might otherwise invite scepticism. Not for them the candour of billionaire chairman of the American conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett, who regularly confesses to his shareholders about the "colossal mistakes made by your chairman".
And the deceptions may not be petty. Where an officer is in possession of information of considerable importance - as was the case with senior Defence officers during the "children overboard" episode - he or she will often become complicit in the suppression of information.
None of this is to gainsay the importance of honesty as a value both personally and for the public service. And indeed sanctions for inappropriate dishonesty are strewn throughout professional life. The real story is that dishonesty is so bad it's a criminal offence in some situations but it's required practice elsewhere. And typically the most senior officers - who are called upon to "embed" the stated values - are those who have learnt that "honesty in all we do and say" is more laden with organisational imperatives than more naive souls might imagine.
Lists of values mean next to nothing as bland assertions without contest. Just as economists are trained to understand how much people value something, not by what they say but rather by what they do - that is how much of one thing they're prepared to sacrifice to get something else - so people's values emerge from difficult choices between alternatives. Should respect count for more than honesty? Should tolerance and diversity be more important than reliability?
Alas, even here we haven't made much progress, because values don't go into battle against each other as Platonic forms. They are demonstrated in a context. If I criticise a colleague's performance, that might reflect disrespect or the very opposite, depending on a whole list of variables, many of which may only be dimly evident to outsiders, and remain hotly contested between different parties. Yet where there's disagreement, and some resolution must be found, it must often be imposed by those in authority, who will duly reference the official organisational values in their decision.
I suspect there's real merit in embedding such decision-making, in so far as humanly possible, in a deliberately cultivated awareness of its ethical dimensions. The Australian Public Service Commission's "decision-making model" offers a sensible guide of this kind. And the proposed values it proselytises to its charges seem more carefully hedged, less bumptious than the South Australian example referenced above.
Still, count me among the sceptics when it comes to any disembodied apex list of values from which appropriate behaviour is supposed to be deduced. For in our social and professional life we are forever trading off relative values, which live ultimately in the complex circumstances of individual actions, not in bland protestations, however bold. There's something creepy about calls from on high for "honesty in all that we do and say" while the routine deceptions of everyday life, both petty and otherwise, proceed apace.
Nicholas Gruen is chief executive of Lateral Economics.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
The article explains that bland value-slogans can hide routine spin. Candour — clear, specific admissions about problems or mistakes — gives investors real information to act on. It contrasts government-style platitudes with the frankness of people like Warren Buffett, who openly confesses “colossal mistakes,” showing that plain-speaking leadership provides more useful signals for assessing management and risk than empty slogans.
Look for vague, feel-good words without substance — phrases such as “improved,” “enhanced” or “best practices” that lack metrics, timelines or concrete actions. The article warns about repackaging previously announced policies and selective detail. Investors should seek specific facts, measurable targets, and historical context rather than accepting polished rhetoric at face value.
The article cites the OECD’s headline “Structural reforms more important than ever” as rhetorical rather than informative, and contrasts the South Australian public sector’s slogan “honesty in all that we do and say” with everyday managerial spin. It also references the ‘children overboard’ episode as an instance where suppression of important information occurred — underscoring why clear, plain-language disclosure matters to those relying on statements for decisions.
The article argues they are not, on their own. Value-lists are meaningless unless backed by observable choices and actions. Investors should judge values by what leaders actually do in difficult situations — for example, whether management admits mistakes, backs claims with evidence, and enforces accountability — rather than relying solely on formal value statements.
Ask for specifics: look for quantitative metrics, timelines, third‑party verification and historical comparisons. Check whether new announcements materially differ from past disclosures or are merely repackaged. Review management commentary for admissions of risk or mistakes and consult independent analysts, auditors, or regulatory filings to corroborate claims.
The article points to Buffett’s habit of openly confessing “colossal mistakes” as an example of useful candour. Such frankness signals a willingness to be accountable and provides investors with realistic appraisals of past decisions — traits that help shareholders assess management quality and the true risk profile of a business.
The article notes that when officers possess important information and become complicit in suppressing it, stakeholders are deprived of facts needed for sound decisions. For investors, suppression or selective disclosure increases uncertainty and the risk of being blindsided by later revelations, so spotting inconsistencies and demanding fuller disclosure is prudent.
The article praises the idea of embedding ethical awareness into decision-making (it references the Australian Public Service Commission’s decision-making model). For investors, organizations that adopt clear, well‑defined decision frameworks—and that demonstrate applying them—are likelier to make defensible, consistent choices and to communicate more transparently, reducing governance risk.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
