

Ask HN: Will you share company revenue/expenses/profit numbers with  employees? - tablet

Let's say you lead a private company of 30 people. Revenue info is closed. Do you think it is wise to share this information with all employees? Pros and Cons?
======
ColinWright
In the UK the directors of a closed company are required by law to maintain a
degree of confidentiality. While this does not necessarily imply that the
employees cannot be told things, the employees are not themselves bound by the
same requirement for confidentiality. Therefore telling the employees things
effectively releases them from the control of the directors, and that can be
construed as a breach.

Additionally, not every employee has the same point of view, and not every
employee has the same degree of understanding. A small blip that is, in truth,
minor and irrelevant may be regarded with concern and possibly horror by
employees who are otherwise intelligent, enthusiastic, and committed. This can
cause concern for them where none is necessary.

So perhaps some should be told and others not? There is the consideration of
"fairness" - some employees get very upset and concerned if they feel that
others have information that they don't.

In short, there are serious problems with trying to share detailed information
about prospects, negotiations, revenue, contracts, expenses, profits, cash-
flow, _etc,_ with the general work force.

This is not to say that there should be a culture of secrecy, but complete
openness is potentially dangerous. Certainly in my experience, more than once,
significant openness has led to significant problems.

------
iSloth
I have been in a few companies that have shared financial information to their
employees, my take on it is as follows.

In the first company this was seen by staff as a tactic to enforce an
understanding as to why salaries were perhaps below average, and justify some
of the recent company decisions/purchases or lack of, the directors assumed it
would motivate their staff to try harder now they have a better understanding
of the company.

In reality staff become concerned about the company financials instead of
concentrating on doing a good job, they also might start looking for more
secure alternative employment. It really didn't seem to help anything, also
this information can get out into the public, which is never good for
marketing.

The second company was more affluent in their business, however again this had
it's problems. Probably the best example was the union backed anual pay
negotiation. The company announced a £4million increase in profit and the
union argued that staff should therefore be entitled to a 3% increase in base
pay in light of the success.

However the company then went onto explain how this actually was only a 1%
increase in profit and therefore pay should match the percentage. Needless to
say there were many months of arguing before a settlement was made, for
interest the final solution was a 3% increase.

In this example if the company made clear they only made 1% increase in profit
it would have been much easier just negotiate the pay, however the details
they provided made many people feel the company was "greedy".

Unfortunately many staff are not business minded and financial information
will be viewed differently by many people, I would share a minimum with all
your staff, any probably stick to percentages or similar figures which still
leave out key information.

------
brudgers
It depends on the company's culture as established by its leadership.
Organizations can foster a positive workplace culture with complete
transparency regarding income, expenses, salaries, etc. Governments are
[perhaps] an example.

The litmus test would be, are employees expected to keep their compensation
confidential in regards to their coworkers?

