Compassionate Systems: Clear is Kind , Unclear is Unkind

I've been contemplating a question lately: "How does an organization build systems that are compassionate?"

This may seem like a strange question. I'm not trying to anthropomorphize systems. I'm examining the interconnected human relationships that keep systems working and moving forward. These systems—training programs, hiring processes, guidelines, policies—are often built on a "get it done" mentality. When organizations are lucky enough to build them at all, they're typically constrained by the smallest budget, shortest timeline, and lowest priority.

The result? Systems that nobody reads, don't improve anything and are unclear. This isn't new, nor is it surprising to anyone who's done technical writing or process design. But how do we change it? I think the answer is to get really clear on what we mean and live up to it.

What Clarity in Systems Actually Means

Compassion is having a strong, active wish for all beings to be free from suffering. It goes beyond empathy to include wisdom and the motivation to act. Compassion moves people to see something wrong and fix it—not just for themselves, but for the greater good, for everyone.

This matters because systems built with clarity as their foundation are more flexible, more resilient, and more likely to survive. These systems embody compassion because they work to help all the people who use it. Outside of meditation practice, philosophical texts or organizational books, I haven't personally witnessed many truly compassionate organizational systems.

Many systems claim to be compassionate, but they don't stand up to scrutiny because they lack clarity, honesty, and accountability.

The Employment Agreement That Wasn't

Recently, I reviewed an employment agreement that crystallized this theory for me.

The document lacked clarity in critical areas:

• Expected work hours (no definition of a "normal workday")

• Health benefits structure (vague references to "such benefits as the company may provide")

• Bonus eligibility (you're "eligible to participate" with no target or metrics)

• Performance recognition (no defined criteria or process)

• Severance protection (ambiguous language that could mean anything)

• Post-employment restrictions (so broad they'd prevent working in my profession)

When I raised these concerns professionally—with data, research, and proposed revisions—the offer was withdrawn.

I was gutted.

Why Clarity Is an Act of Compassion

When I write documents, I always consider: Will this serve the greater good? Will it help the organization and the individual reading it? Is it worth their time and attention? If the answer is no, I don't write it.

But when a document is meant to serve as both protection and partnership—like an employment agreement—the organization has a responsibility to be even more clear.

Vague words and weasel phrases don't build trust. They diminish it.

Clarity is sincerity. Clarity is brave.

As Brené Brown states: "Clear is kind. Unclear is unkind."

An unclear employment agreement isn't just poor drafting—it's unkind to the person being asked to sign it. It leaves them vulnerable, confused about expectations, and unable to make informed decisions about their future at the company.

The Organizational Shadow

I was recently reading Carl Jung's Memories, Dreams, Reflections, where he reflects on consciousness and the self. One passage struck me as especially relevant to organizational systems.

Jung describes how each person's consciousness is like a small candle held against the mighty wind of the world. Unknown to each person, the candle casts a shadow that stretches far behind them. This shadow isn't good or bad—it simply is. But our fear of what may lurk behind us as we brave the world creates a situation where we refuse to look at the shadow or acknowledge it.

The same is true for leaders in organizations.

We don't want to acknowledge our organizational shadow. Leaders remain ambiguous or unclear because they're already braving so much for their companies. To turn backward and acknowledge the shadow feels too difficult, too scary, too time-consuming.

Avoiding the elephant in the room doesn't make it disappear. It just means we're operating in partial darkness.

What Happens When You Choose Clarity Over Convenience

When I pointed out the unclear language in that employment agreement and proposed clearer, more balanced terms, I was told the organization couldn't accommodate the changes.

The offer was withdrawn.

My first instinct was to doubt myself: Was I too demanding? Should I have just signed it and hoped for the best?

But then I returned to the principle: Clear is kind. Unclear is unkind.

Accepting terms I knew were unfair, staying silent about concerning clauses, hoping things would "work out"—that wouldn't have been kind to either party. It would have led to resentment, misalignment, and eventual departure.

Naming my concerns directly, backing them with data, proposing solutions—was the best choice. It gave both sides the information needed to make a decision about fit.

The outcome? We weren't aligned.

And that's okay.

Building Compassionate Systems Requires Courage

If organizations want to live into their stated values of trust, authenticity, and employee well-being, we need to address the biggest issue gripping our organizational systems: a purposeful lack of clarity.

This lack of clarity isn't accidental. It's often strategic—a way to maintain maximum flexibility while minimizing commitment. But what it actually creates is:

• Eroded trust (employees can't trust what isn't clear)

• Increased turnover (people leave when they feel undervalued or trapped)

• Reduced performance (ambiguity breeds anxiety, not excellence)

• Legal risk (unclear terms often get struck down in court anyway)

Compassionate systems require:

Clarity - Say what you mean. Define expectations. Remove ambiguity.

Honesty - Don't hide behind vague language. State terms directly.

Accountability - Create mechanisms for feedback, challenge, and improvement.

Courage - Say what everyone is thinking out loud. Address the uncomfortable truths in your policies and practices.

Integrating Mindfulness Into Systems Development

I believe integrating presence and mindfulness into systems development is a critical organizational step forward. Many thought leaders are already discussing the level of consciousness we must bring to organizations to thrive in the coming decade.

What would it look like to build systems with this at the foundation?

• Employment agreements that clearly define expectations, compensation, and mutual obligations

• Performance frameworks that spell out success criteria and provide genuine feedback

• Policies written for clarity and mutual benefit, not maximum legal protection for one party

• Hiring processes that respect candidates' time and treat them as future partners, not commodities

I may not have examples of fully compassionate organizational systems yet, but I'm keeping my eyes open for them. And I'm reflecting on how I show up at work and in life to encourage this type of structure.

The Lesson I'm Carrying Forward

When you choose to live up to your values, you might lose opportunities in the short term.

But it saves you from the wrong opportunities long-term.

If living a big life means anything, it means:

• Knowing your worth and not compromising on it

• Naming problems clearly and proposing solutions

• Walking away from situations that lack integrity

• Building and supporting systems that serve the greater good

That's the work. That's the practice.