The Hidden Transparency
June 07, 07Can an organization suffer from schizophrenia? Or is paranoia a better word? Can an organization suffer from impairments in its perception of reality? If the answer is yes to all of the above, should one politely ignore the relevant symptoms? These scary thoughts crossed my mind while reading the recent letter from Des Cavanagh, the Diamond Trading Company’s (DTC) director of sales. In this letter – clearly prepared by the legal department – the sales director expressed his “disappointment over publicity in the trade press regarding the application process for the next SoC [Supplier of Choice] contract.”
I hope I will be forgiven for taking this personally. I just do not understand the message the DTC is giving to its Sightholders. At no time before in the history of the DTC have I have seen so many serious attempts to explain the new SoC application processes.
These explanations have been via the unprecedented “road shows” in all cutting and trading centers, through which senior DTC executives Howard Davies and Louise Prior have gone out of their ways to explain the new processes to the diamond trade and industry.
I’d like to know what is so secret, so confidential and so hush-hush, about the application processes that the DTC needs to warn its clients – and then link the warning to the implied threat that talking is tantamount to contract breach. Bribing the GIA is one thing – it had no consequences; however, talking about the SoC application processes is really serious…
But it was as a source of pride to De Beers that the DTC went out of its way to explain the application processes. So what is the fuss all about? Howard Davies, who as DTC Downstream Strategy Manager, is undoubtedly the organization’s foremost authority on SoC procedures, devoted enormous amounts of valuable management time to these road shows – underscoring the importance of explaining the application process to as many people as possible.
If anything, at the Application Process road-show performance I attended (in Tel Aviv), so many minute details were discussed that Howard actually “lost the audience.” This was evident by the fact that not a single question was asked after a few hours of presentation. There is still a lot of confusion out there about the process – especially about the “filtering process” of the applications by the rather “invisible” SoC Ombudsman Dermot Gleeson. There are even more questions, many of which remain unanswered, about the role of the various DTCs in the producer countries in the decision-making process.
The trade press – and some columnists – plays a vital role in encouraging discussion and debate about the SoC application processes and their continued changes.
This is where the unflattering association with schizophrenia or paranoia comes in. The DTC letter to Sightholders is wholly inconsistent with the overall efforts on transparency that De Beers seems to be promoting in the SoC application process. Moreover, providing transparency on the processes is clearly a commitment in context with the agreements with the European Commission (EC). (Lack of process transparency has been the cause of most complaints to the Ombudsman.)
This does not seem the right time for the DTC to “suppress” any discussion on the application processes – especially when the rules of the game are still being changed during the process. When reading Des Cavanagh’s letter I couldn’t help but wonder, “Des, what are you trying to hide? What makes you so upset?”
Accusing the Sightholders
What is really infuriating are the implied accusations of Sightholders. “It is disappointing to note… that the contractual obligations entered into by some applicants have apparently been ignored,” writes Cavanagh. He adds, “I would like to remind you of the legally binding obligations undertaken in signing the Confidentiality and Process Letter in respect of the applications process for the next SoC Contract.”
It is a return to arrogance to assume that the processes are necessarily revealed to the trade press by Sightholders. I would like to remind Des Cavanagh that most of his colleagues (himself included) are in the process of becoming redundant (or, for some, seeking early retirement).
Competing producers, major players in the market, and even people deemed well connected are inundated by resumes and phone calls of DTC executives who realize that, in terms of their career at the DTC, they are living on borrowed time. They are all looking for life beyond De Beers. Executives in the rough diamond department, especially, seem to believe that their careers will be over very soon – and staff reductions will be announced at any time.
Respecting these personal concerns of DTC staff and their families, we have avoided writing about these issues for the most part (the Diamdel story was an exception) – but it is time for the DTC to wake up and wonder whether it might be possible that the “leaks” are coming from within. Forget about all these wonderful sessions of the new commitments, ethics, etc. Today, Charterhouse Street 17 houses a bunch of disillusioned, angry, saddened and disappointed people.
To many staff members, the Diamond Dream is over.
Wake up, Des! A corollary of the dissatisfaction, fears, uncertainty, etc. of the personal futures of many of the people around you makes it inevitable that there is loads of information from within the DTC out “in the market.” It seems rather unreasonable that you appear to be scolding (and blaming) Sightholders. The avalanche of information about your internal processes, which is becoming available to your competitors, should be your real concern.
Again, the information comes from within. You have lost control. Sending your staff to various compulsory “indoctrination” exercises, personnel workshops, etc. on the new De Beers norms (“Show we care!” “Pull together!” “Be passionate!” “Build trust!”) are all so remote from current DTC reality.
This DTC letter from Des Cavanagh is a classic instance of the pot calling the kettle black.
Actually, it is all rather depressing.
Apology to Clients
From our perspective, the relevant part of the (much longer, multiple issue) DTC letter was totally off-base. I think the DTC sales director owes his clients an apology. Des, when you do not have your own house in order, do not blame your clients. There is no need for you to remind them “of the legally binding obligations undertaken in signing the Confidentiality and Process Letter.” Moreover, there is really nothing in the documentation that is not in the public domain – and it got there mostly with the kind courtesies of the DTC itself.
One of my sources reminded me of the characteristics of crumbling empires. First the crumbling empires impair the dissemination of information (everything becomes “confidential” or “secret”). Then they follow up with witch hunts to find “leakers.” At the end, they blame it all on the press. A smart organization would try to maintain a good working relationship with journalists and would avoid the implied de-legitimizing of the trade press. Warning your clients not to talk to the trade press – which is implied in the letter – is reminiscent of different days and different times.
The DTC must realize that the more one attempts to keep vital (and legitimate) information out of the public domain, the more it will end up there.
Des, letters like the one you wrote will only expedite that process – and will certainly motivate journalists to work even harder to do their job.
Have a nice weekend.