Request successful.
Sign-up successful!
Key Takeaway: Hiding financial targets undermines every claim you make about transparency. Teams that can't see whether the company is on track can't help you get there. If sharing the exact numbers feels too risky, share the relative version (percent growth, percent of target hit) instead. At your next leadership meeting, decide which financial KPIs you'll surface to the whole team and pick a format that gives them context without exposing what genuinely needs to stay private.
Most leaders I talk to agree, in principle, that company goals should be transparent. They'll happily share the strategy. They'll publish the OKRs. They'll display the team-level KPI dashboards on a screen in the office.
And then we get to financial targets, and the same leaders get visibly uncomfortable.
This is one of the most common gaps I see between what companies say about transparency and what they actually practice. The strategy can be public, but the revenue target is need-to-know. The OKRs can be visible to the whole company, but the gross margin number lives only on a slide in the CFO's deck. The result is a half-transparent culture that the people inside the company immediately see through.
In my experience, there's a much better way. And it doesn't require sharing every line of your P&L.
The instinct to keep financial numbers private usually comes from a good place. Leaders worry that employees will leak numbers to competitors, get demoralized by missed targets, or misinterpret the data. Some of those concerns are real. Most of them are overstated.
Here's what tends to actually happen when financial targets are hidden:
Research on open-book management from the National Center for Employee Ownership found that companies that share financial information with their employees saw an increase in sales of 1.66% per year and employment of 1.27% per year compared to companies that didn't, with employee-owned companies seeing even larger lifts. These aren't huge numbers in isolation, but compounded over years, they make a real difference. And they reflect a broader pattern: when employees understand the financial reality of the business, they make better decisions in service of it.
The good news is, you don't have to choose between full transparency and hiding everything. There's a middle path that gets you almost all the benefit without exposing the data that genuinely needs to stay private.
If you're not comfortable sharing exact financial targets in absolute numbers, share them as relative values.
Instead of "Q3 revenue target: $14.2M," share "Q3 revenue target: 23% growth over Q2."
Instead of "Annual ARR goal: $52M," share "Annual ARR goal: 40% growth over last year."
Instead of "Net profit margin: 18%," share "Improving net profit margin by 4 percentage points over the year."
This approach gives your team everything they actually need:
What it doesn't give: the exact absolute numbers that you might genuinely worry about leaking to a competitor, an investor, or a former employee.
I've seen this format work across companies of every size. The team feels included. The data stays appropriate. And leadership stops having to navigate the awkward gap between preaching transparency and practicing selective disclosure.
Financial targets are usually KPIs, not OKRs. Revenue, gross margin, EBITDA, ARR, cash runway — these are the metrics that need to stay healthy day to day. They live on dashboards. They get tracked continuously. They're maintenance metrics.
OKRs, by contrast, are change goals. They're the things you're trying to move beyond their current baseline. Sometimes a financial outcome is the Key Result. "Grow ARR from $24M to $32M by Q4" is a legitimate Key Result if hitting that growth requires specific change initiatives this quarter. But more often, the financial number is the KPI you want to influence, and the OKR is the change that should move it.
For more on this distinction, we've covered why companies can't run on KPIs alone and the difference between Metrics, KPIs, and Key Results. The short version: financial metrics belong as KPIs in your system. Whether or not they appear in OKRs depends on whether they're the thing you're actively trying to change this cycle.
Either way, the transparency question is the same. If your team can see the strategy and the OKRs but not the financial KPIs the company is being measured against, you've created a blind spot that undermines the rest of the system.
To be fair, there are some financial details that genuinely should stay limited. Specifically:
Everything else, in my experience, is fair game to share at least at a directional level. Company revenue, growth rates, key margins, runway position, fundraising plans (after they're public), expense ratios. The list of "absolutely must stay private" tends to be much shorter than leaders' first instinct suggests.
If you want to know whether your company has a transparency gap around financial targets, here's a quick diagnostic.
Pick a mid-level employee at random and ask them 3 questions:
If the answers are clear, you've earned the right to call yourself a transparent company.
If they're vague, contradictory, or "I think we're doing fine but I'm not really sure," you have a transparency gap. Closing it doesn't require sharing your full P&L. It requires picking which numbers matter most, deciding what format (absolute or relative) feels right, and making sure those numbers are visible everywhere strategy and OKRs are visible.
At your next leadership team meeting, do one specific thing.
Take 15 minutes to decide which financial KPIs you'll surface to the whole company, and in what format. Pick 3 to 5 of them. For each one, decide whether you'll share it in absolute numbers (e.g., "$24M ARR") or relative numbers (e.g., "40% growth"). Then commit to making them visible alongside your strategy and OKRs, with the same cadence and the same prominence.
It's a small decision that takes one meeting to make. But it closes one of the most common credibility gaps between what companies say about transparency and what they actually do. And it tends to be the kind of move that mid-level employees notice immediately, in a good way.