Share Just Enough Information

Careful about sharing information

On February 12, 2002, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stood in front of journalists and the media at another U.S. Department of Defense news briefing.

Facing another probing question about the lack of evidence to link the Iraqi government with the provision of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, Rumsfeld began his reply, with little idea that he was about to coin the phrase that he would be remembered by.

“…because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

I remember watching the briefing on BBC News. My initial reaction was that Rumsfeld had said something tautological and utterly ridiculous. However, in retrospect, it has been labeled a smart distillation of complex matters.

Although the public would declare this phrase as a Rumsfeld creation, his memoir mentioned that it was commonly used inside NASA, and Rumsfeld likely heard a variation of it when he assessed ballistic missile threats to the United States in partnership with William Graham, an administrator at the space agency.

At the time of the “known knowns” phrase, Rumsfeld found himself in a difficult professional situation that can become more acute with increased levels of seniority. Generally, the more senior an individual is in an organization, the more access they have to sensitive information. The more careful they have to be about how it’s handled and shared.

An individual’s experience is what allows them to understand, reason, and vet sensitive information to ensure that confidentiality isn’t broken. It is their experience that means that when it’s time to deliver information to others, that it’s done in a way that respects the owners of the information, the information itself, and those that want to know more. This is why it’s a skill you need to learn and practice.

Delivering bad news

Medical professionals know far too well the dilemma of sharing sensitive information. When communicating with their patients, they establish trust through openness and honesty. If a patient has been diagnosed with a fatal illness, the delivery of that information must be done transparently, sensitively, and kindly.

This requires a great deal of knowledge and understanding on the part of the physician, both in terms of how to summarize and present the information, but equally importantly, how to deliver it in a humane way with empathy and candor. Ethics are also important to consider, as the physician must understand how to handle delicate situational intricacies.

For example, consider how fatality policy in hospitals requires the next of kin to perform the initial identification of the deceased. This may mean that a close relative may be refused to see the deceased until the next of kin has done so, which is an ethically difficult quandary.

Furthermore, is it wrong to withhold the specifics of a diagnosis, even when it isn’t life-threatening, from someone who is suffering from serious mental health problems and could be exposed to more risk as a result of knowing the truth? What if there’s no concrete reason to withhold information of a diagnosis, but their family is requesting it be kept secret from them?

Maybe, we should be glad we’re in software.

Trends toward transparency

As a manager, you’ll be required to make regular decisions about how much you should share with other staff and when. The easiest option with any sensitive subject is to not say anything at all.