Working in the open for leaders

This post is for leaders.

When I say leaders, I mean anyone who leads a team or an organisation, however big or small, especially in government and the third sector.

If you feel accountable for outcomes, risk, reputation and public money, but you don’t always get a clear view of the work early enough to steer it, this is for you.

The problem leaders face

Most leaders I work with do not lack intent.

They lack timely visibility into the work and challenges.

They are accountable for decisions, but often see the work too late. They get updates after the work has hardened, when changing course is expensive, political, or embarrassing.

Meanwhile, other people in the organisation fill the information void with their own stories. Because when information is scarce, assumptions reign. Stories form. Trust drains.

If you’ve ever thought, “Why am I only hearing about this now?”, you already understand the problem.

The counter-intuitive fix

On the face of it, working in the open looks like giving up control.

In practice, it often gives leaders more of what they actually need: earlier insight, clearer governance, and fewer surprises.

Public Digital describe the traditional pattern as broadcast, hierarchical and tightly controlled, with a big reveal at the end.

Working in the open flips that. It makes decisions, learning and trade-offs visible while the work is live, not after the fact.

This is not marketing. It’s a form of governance.

In Wales, this isn’t just a nice idea. The Welsh Digital Service Standard expects teams to work in the open where it’s safe to do so. For example:

sharing your thinking early for feedback and learning so you can course correct
sharing the thinking behind decisions
sharing useful artefacts as the work happens.

For leaders, that matters because it reframes openness as part of good practice, not a risky optional extra.

It is a way to lead change with a better signal, because you can see what’s stuck, what’s changing, and what needs a decision before it becomes a crisis.

The earlier you get signal, the better your decisions will be.

What “working in the open” means

A team is working in the open when they make work visible as it happens, in small, digestible updates that include what’s going well, what’s changing, and what’s been learned.

The best working in the open is usually the nerdy stuff:

how the work is done
what evidence is shaping it
what trade-offs are being made

It is not theatre. If it becomes performative, it stops being useful.

When I say performative, I mean post event comms announcements, which share a linear surface level story, with a positive spin without revealing the real learning, wrong choices or the nuts and bolts of how the work was done.

How leaders make it possible

If you only remember one thing, remember this.

The biggest blocker is rarely capability. It is permission.

Leaders make working in the open possible through four behaviours.

1. Make permission explicit

If people are unsure whether openness is allowed, they will default to silence.

Say it plainly:

“Default to openness unless there’s a good reason not to.”
“Share what you’re learning as you go, not just the finished product.”
“If you’re unsure, ask early. We’ll help you decide.”

This is also how you stop openness from being a brave personal choice and turn it into a supported way of working.

2. Set boundaries that make it safe

Openness without boundaries is where leaders get nervous.

That nervousness is rational. Matt Jukes , Head of Products and Services, National Data Library, GDS describes how people can read between the lines, see themselves in what’s written, and raise concerns. He also describes how content can travel further than intended.

So give teams simple, clear boundaries:

Keep it about the work, not identifiable individuals
Avoid naming people in risks, conflict, or sensitive contexts
Assume anything published can travel further than intended
Be cautious with hot takes if impartiality matters
Agree what must stay closed (for example personal data, security, live procurement)

This is also why OpenMatt’s “slider” idea helps. You can be open in different gears, from closed - not yet - open - shout it from the rooftops.

The leader’s role is to make that boundary clear.

3. Remove friction, keep ownership with teams

If publishing requires six layers of approval, you are teaching people not to bother.

Your job is not to become the editor-in-chief. It’s to remove the obstacles that make openness painful.

That can look like:

light-touch review for sensitive content (pair writing or a buddy check, not committee)
comms acting as enablers, not gatekeepers
a safe internal place to start, before going wider

The aim is to make openness the easy path. If it’s easier to share a short update than to produce a slide deck, teams will share more. You will get earlier signal with less reporting overhead.

4. Model it first

This is the move most leaders avoid, and it is the one that changes everything.

If you tell teams to work in the open while you stay closed, people will assume openness is risky, optional, or only for junior staff. That’s usually the end of it.

Start by sharing your own small updates about what you’re focused on, what you’re learning, and what’s changed.

When you model openness, you do three powerful things:

You create psychological safety. People see learning and uncertainty are allowed.
You set the cultural norm. Visibility becomes how work gets done, not a comms add-on.
You reduce narrative gaps. Fewer people have to guess what’s going on.

If you want one sentence to use with your teams:
“I’ll go first. I’ll share my own updates, and I’ll read yours with curiosity, not judgement.”

Common leader fears (and what to do instead)

Leaders hesitate for very human reasons. Here are the big fears - together with the simplest response.

“We’ll look like we don’t know what we’re doing.”

Most change work is uncertain. Pretending otherwise creates fragility.

Openness replaces false certainty with credible learning.

“What if people steal our ideas?”

They might.

That’s often a good trade. When others build on your work, you reduce duplication, attract useful feedback, and connect with people solving similar problems. In the public sector, that matters.

“What if people take it the wrong way?”

They might.

That’s why boundaries matter. Working in the open is not “say everything”. It is “say enough, often enough, that people don’t have to guess.”

“We don’t have time.”

You don’t have time not to.

Working in the open is usually quicker and cheaper than briefing theatre. A short update and a screenshot beats a 30-page deck that nobody reads.

One simple thing to try straight away

Pick one team and run a six-week experiment.

Your only ask is this: publish a short weekly update to an agreed audience (internal is fine) covering:

what changed this week
what you learned
what’s stuck
what decision or help you need

Your job as the leader is to do three things, every week:

protect 30 minutes for them to write it
remove unnecessary sign-off
respond once with curiosity (one question, one offer of help)

If it works, you will notice it in meetings. People will reference the updates. Dependencies will surface earlier. Trust will start to compound.

If you’re a practitioner reading this

Share it with your leaders.

Most leaders aren’t opposed to openness. They’re cautious because they feel accountable for risk, and they need a safe way to say yes.

Example Weeknotes

Cymru Ddigidol - An unofficial community project to share digital resources in Wales, including a list of weeknotes.
Welsh Revenue Authority - blog sharing how they create services for people in Wales
Givewell - go even further and focus on sharing their mistakes, specifically. How does it make you feel about this organisation as you read through this page?
Sickle Cell Weeknotes by Public Digital - project specific weeknotes for a limited period of time.