Living in a Fish Bowl or Not? The Role of Transparency and Privacy in Creative Dialogues on Enterprise Social Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Transparency—the observability of activities, behaviors, and performance—has become the panacea of modern management. Yet, there is a conundrum in the literature with some studies suggesting transparency and others suggesting privacy may benefit group creativity. A similar conundrum exists regarding the effects of different social capital types—structural holes versus network cohesion on group creativity. Enterprise Social Media (ESM) provide a unique opportunity to solve these conundrums by allowing groups to be “transparent”— non-group members can observe and/or participate in group activities—or “private”— group members and activities are hidden from the community—and enabling groups to develop distinct social capital structures. Using data from 28,083 written interactions produced by 109 transparent and 106 private groups in an ESM of a multinational design firm, we find strong support for our contingency hypotheses that both transparent and private groups may produce high levels of creative dialogues, yet, in different forms. Specifically, expansion-focused creative dialogues—those focused on combining or expanding existing concepts—emerge in transparent groups, but only when the group’s social capital is characterized by structural holes. Conversely, reframing-focused dialogues—those focused on challenging and rethinking—emerge in private groups, but only when the group’s social capital is characterized by network cohesion. Theoretically, these findings help solve the conundrums in the literature on group creativity and shed light on the role of ESM use in this context. Practically, our findings offer a critical reflection onto contemporary initiatives for increasing transparency, whether through physical design or digital transformation. </p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".