Why the Boss's Presence (or Absence) Matters So Much

July 2, 2010 RSS Feed Print

Comment (8)
Tweet

Michael Wade

An old minister once summed up the fine qualities of one of his relatives by observing, “She was the one who walked in when everyone else walked out.” He was referring to the woman’s willingness to help people, in part, by being present when others were seeking distance.

[See 10 rules of E-mail etiquette.]

“Being present” is no small thing. Whether it's the person who visits the coworker in the hospital or the manager who walks to the employee’s office, there can be a powerful signal in the willingness to be there. That’s one reason why Management By Wandering Around can have such impact. People want leaders who know what their work area is like and who are not above dropping by to chat. I’ve seen places where the CEO seldom varies from a set path to and from the office. Rest assured, that practice did not go unnoticed by the people on nearby floors who never were graced by the CEO’s presence.

There are, of course, times when leaders should stay away. Their presence may spoil a good time or be seen as an implicit endorsement of questionable behavior. A supervisor who goes to happy hour with the team may be wise to have a drink and then leave before someone puts down a few Zombies and decides to unload a gunny sack of grievances.

[See when convenience rules decision-making.]

This all falls under the question of when to engage and when to back off. When is presence needed and desired? When might it spark resentment or interfere with work? A leader who is too detached might not be able to give a clear answer. In general, erring on the side of being there is best. Cautious detachment and distance can be easily seen as indifference.

In too many cases, that perception is correct.

Michael Wade writes Execupundit.com, an eclectic combination of management advice, observations, and links. A partner with the Phoenix firm of Sanders Wade Rodarte Consulting Inc., he has advised private and public-sector organizations for more than 30 years.

Tags:: careers

« Previous Post Next Post »

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts Comment Name State Email

Please enter the two words below into the text field underneath the image.

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The sort of behavior advocated by Ms. Santos should NEVER be tolerated. It is not only highly unprofessional, unethical, but could become grounds for a lawsuit.
Managers are responsible for seeing to it that the right person is in the appropriate position. They also have a duty to their subordinates to help them accomplish their tasks on time and to the best of their ability. Making employees feel appreciated and valued, as well as assisting them find ways to help them do their jobs better, creates a team that is hard to beat.
Too often managers either don't realize or don't remember that the goal of satisfying customers and increasing profitability is not in the managers' hands, but in the hands of the employees.

Cheire of IL 11:10AM March 08, 2011

You've highlighted a core behavior here, Michael. In my research on top performing supervisors, the ONE thing they all did was "show up a lot." In the world of virtual teams, I've changed that to "touch base a lot." But if you do that good things happen. You have conversations, which are critical to good supervision. And those conversations are learning events for both the boss and the team member. It's the way that the boss keeps and catches problems when they're small.

Wally Bock of NC 6:23PM October 01, 2010

To add the the last post about finding this open admission of falsifying documents just unbelievable, does that poster realize that if someone knows something was falsified and was then termed, it could create the potential for violence?
Obviously, such behavior is to be blamed solely on the perpetrator of workplace violence, but assuming one just does not know who is capable of such a negative response to a made up firing, is it wise to play with fire by knowingly creating fake stuff like that? Honestly, I'd never apply with someone's firm who posts stuff like that, that they can't believe the dishonest strategy worked.
Shame on you.
Every competent HR department I've ever known just drives employees they do not want up the wall, in a sense forcing them out. It always seemed to work without them having to make things up.
Again, if they were so bad, why a need to fake anything? Shouldn't there be evidence of gross incompetence to prop up any attempts at terming??
Sheesh. Again, shame on you.

In Disbelief of IL 10:21PM September 14, 2010