Traditional "behind closed doors" communication vs openness

There's one thing that's been bugging me since I opened my blog and have been following the kind of mentions and writings it has received in other blogs and the media. I have also received some interesting feedback about this issue already.

My rant about this matter is directed towards people who have an ongoing rapport with the public in the form of PR and at the same time exercise this behaviour in private. This is just to say that I understand why your Average Joe without a public life can be quite opinionated in private, whereas I have trouble understanding this particular two-faced bahaviour often demonstrated by politicians, association leaders and yes, even CEOs:

There's a long tradition in Finland to communicate "behind closed doors", perhaps a lot more than people like to admit, and certainly more than in many other cultures.

This seems to be yet another issue where there's a bit of a generational gap in existence: older and (therefor) more experienced business people tend to incline more towards this behaviour than the younger ones. Now its a good question that: have they learned to be that way? Or is it something that comes from value + attitude base they grew up with? Younger people almost automatically feel different about sharing and voicing opinions publicly. That is sort of what the whole megratrend of social media is all about: the person of the year is you (or was 2 years ago), and everybody wants to have their own voice and be known etc. I'm not saying that's perfectly healthy either ;) just that: 1) there is a difference, and 2) it affects how people communicate.

The really unacceptable part of the traditional "behind closed doors" finnish -style of communication is how much of an inner circle thing it is. Its the part of Finland and finnish culture that acutely reminds me of Kekkoslovakia. Since opening up this blog the opinions and remarks voiced here have already been judged as "unprofessional" and "scandalous". It seems that you really don't need to say much in this country to annoy some people?

Finally I get to the point; my precise problem is this familiar scene that repeats itself over and over again every day in Finnish business culture: a group of business people get together. Maybe they are just a random group, maybe they are freemasons, maybe members of some association or club. What happens is that they get slightly drunk and start communicating stuff that is essentially just plain dirty gossip, rumors and stuff they are too scared to "say out loud". Their audience is not large, its a limited group of people, and later if anything they said comes back to haunt them, they often claim not remembering it, being drunk, or they change their statement faster than you can say "HYPOCRITE!". Then the whole thing repeats: the next time they "sit out an evening" with business people they build more gossip on the gossip they heard the last time, and it gets around and around and around.

Why exactly is it "professional" to do this two-faced gossiping routine behind closed doors, but it is "unprofessional" to voice even a slightly different opinion publicly? Explain that to me please? It all sounds like a rather fresh pile of horse pucky - not to mention being the behaviour of a bunch of cowards.

One popular theory states that people do this "behind closed doors" act because it used to mean something; exclusivity, membership benefit, being privileged to hear it, etc. Maybe in an ancient time where information wasn't getting around as fast as it is today, and things were less transparent, maybe that was at least partially true. Telling from what I see: today people don't do this routine that much with hard information, its the opinions, insights, perspectives and such that are kept back behind closed door. Things like "You know that he is out of money, right?" or "the CEO there is going to get fired next month, I know someone in the board", or "me and few others are working on blocking that story from being published", etc.

I'm a member of many associations and "closed clubs" my self. So where's the openness part then? The openness is in not changing your opinion and not being afraid to say it. Remember folks: it IS legal in this country to walk around with a voice recorder in your pocket and get absolutely everything on tape without asking anyone (all the conversations you yourself are a part of). So why even try to have two opinions on the same issue: one public and one private? Having the same opinion in private and in public is honest, ethical and professional in my book. How come people have different stands on this issue then? Difficult to say, maybe they have nothing to say themselves so there's an upside in preventing anybody from publicly saying anything at all either.

Just look at these few loud mouthed, opinionated, and very successful people: Mark Cuban (he has said things like "When I die, I want to come back as me" and "cut your credit cards, if you use a credit card you don't want to be rich"), Jason Calacanis ("fire people who are not workaholics"), Bill Maher ("If you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you Pope.").

Why is shutting up in public and gossiping like there's no tomorrow behind closed doors idolized in Finland as "professional" behaviour? If they gossip about you and your company: would you rather have the discussion openly or circulating around as a one-sided rumor?

From my university studies on ethics I keenly remember that the only correct business ethic is to: always stick to the truth, and to never fake reality (lie) in order to gain value from it. Being opinionated "behind closed doors" and then changing your opinion if you got caught outside your little circle is precisely that: lying in order to gain value from it. How do you feel about this?