January 9, 2026
When Transparency Becomes a Threat
Why a well-designed system can sometimes provoke strong resistance
Transparency is often cited as one of the core values of contemporary organizations. Clear processes, better systems, and accurate data are expected to bring greater efficiency, fairness, and a sense of control. Yet in practice, the opposite frequently occurs: initiatives that introduce more transparency often meet with strong resistance.
This text describes one such situation and shows how resistance can be understood not as a problem to be eliminated, but as a signal that reveals something important about the real conditions within an organization.
The context of change
At one point in my professional work in the field of human resources, I was involved in improving outdated organizational processes. One area that proved particularly challenging was the way working hours were tracked—a system that had become administratively burdensome and increasingly unreliable over time.
A change was proposed in the method of recording and managing working hours, with the aim of greater accuracy, reduced administrative load, and better compliance with regulations. The change received management support, and my role included active participation in its preparation and implementation.
At the level of formal objectives, everything made sense.
The resistance that emerged quickly
Resistance appeared almost immediately. It was open, emotional, and often accompanied by anger. The change was rejected without clear arguments, while existing informal practices continued in parallel.
At first, I experienced this resistance as obstruction and as a sign of unwillingness to change. There was a strong impulse to “push” the process further—by explaining the benefits, providing additional instructions, and setting clearer expectations.
Yet something about this picture did not feel convincing. The reactions were too intense to be explained merely by technical disagreement or resistance to a new tool.
What was actually being defended?
In one conversation that allowed for a more open exchange, it became clearer what was happening beneath the surface. There were strong pressures on the middle-management level, combined with a long-standing lack of resources. The actual working conditions were often at the edge of formal regulations, and improvisation was necessary simply to get the work done.
In that context, a new level of transparency did not mean only better organization—it also meant risk: exposing a reality that was known to be unsustainable in the long run, but rarely spoken about openly.
From this perspective, the resistance was not directed against the change itself. It was an attempt to preserve a sense of safety in a system that was already under significant strain.
When the perspective shifts, the intervention shifts as well
The Gestalt approach to organizational work starts from a simple but often overlooked assumption: behaviors make sense within the context in which they arise. When I began to see resistance as information rather than as an obstacle, my way of acting changed as well.
The focus shifted from forcing solutions to creating space for conversations about the real working conditions. Overload became a legitimate topic. Responsibility gradually began to be shared, instead of remaining concentrated at a single organizational level.
The change stopped being a threat and became a trigger for dialogue.
The resistance did not simply “disappear,” but it diminished—because it no longer had to protect what could not be spoken.
What can organizations learn from this?
This situation raises several important questions that go beyond a single case:
- Resistance is often not a problem in people, but in the way the system is organized.
- Transparency is not a neutral intervention—it always reveals something.
- Systems and tools do not operate in a vacuum; they activate existing relationships, fears, and unspoken agreements.
- Real change requires shared responsibility, not its displacement.
When resistance is viewed as a signal rather than a disturbance, organizations gain the opportunity to see what is usually hidden—and only then can they begin to change how they truly function.
In conclusion
Transparency becomes a resource only when an organization is ready to carry what will be seen. Without that capacity, even the best systems can be experienced as a threat.
Perhaps this is where the key value of the Gestalt approach in organizations lies: a shift from control toward contact—and from superficial solutions toward more sustainable ways of working.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email
Sandra Antišić Čanić
My name is Sandra and as a psychotherapist I am dedicated to helping people recognize, understand and overcome emotional challenges. Through a safe and supportive space, I guide clients towards a better self-image, inner balance and a better quality of life.