There is much to say about management by walking around. When a leader gets so focused on what they do within their office and lose touch with those in the organization who are actually performing the critical task, as in the case of higher education, the faculty, they either have failed or are destined to fail. The University of Mississippi was recently sued in federal court by a faculty member who was denied tenure. The faculty members evaluations for five years were extremely positive and there were no negative issues within his body of work that were ever in question. Faculty members that observed the process unfolding of the denial of tenure were documented in making the administration aware of the problem that was unfolding. In courtroom testimony, the former Chancellor stated that tenure and promotion was not an important issue to him while he was in a leadership position. It is hard for me to believe that any real leader could feel the welfare of those in his or her organization is not important.

Because some executives are not up front to see and understand the everyday run of the organisation so they cannot see front line employees' views of situations. There is also such a thing as the "not my idea syndrome" and professional envy.

Best regards,

Debra

Watch the "Undercover Boss" series on BBC Brit HD, and extract the common answers.

Hello Wendy,

Finding "the right" explanation to your question would amount to a research topic on its own, and I think it is one for which an unequivocal/unanimous answer does not exist.

There are many facets to the answer to this question. They are often intertwined and can be linked to factors such as the individual "executive", the board of directors, the organization as a whole and external factors e.g. local, regional and national policies, just to mention a few. These factors can occur in isolation or in combination with each other. The bottom line is that conflicting views exist between executives and their employees due to different interpretations of goals and aspirations and a lack of acknowledgement for what employees (subordinates) can contribute, and do contribute to organizations.

Furthermore, several executives either lack the domain specific professional background required to understand the organization they are running or have simply lost touch with the reality of what is happening on the work floor in their companies. The main problem in my opinion is also that top executives' lack emotional intelligence and the ability to self reflect on the individual actions/decisions they take. This of course is linked to the enormity of the responsibility and "power" attributed to these tasks.

This being said, it does not absolve them of the responsibility to engage their employees actively in the process of being part of the organization especially those in the front line who know what an organization needs, and have answers to these problems most of the time. This is seemingly a very long answer to a pretty straightforward question, but even what I have written does not suffice what I would like to say on this topic. I have added a paper that reflects my experiences on this topic. It is the product of my personal frustrations as a frontline worker that I managed to channel into something productive.

Good luck with finding more insightful answers,

Jamiu Busari

When a person assumes the position of CEO & is given a wide range of authorities, the next inclination is to look for more centralization of power. As time goes on, those who are lower in rank & file will be considered as inferior. At a certain juncture, a line is passed after which there becomes a single master & a horde of slaves.

The above scenario has occurred in many places & was accompanied by a system of fear in which the roles of employees was reduced to that of machines. Such tools are not entitled to suggest or criticize or share in decision making.

A more disturbing state is reached when the CEO considers any proposition as a personal attack upon "brilliance" which requires retaliation.

Of course, the above depiction of a state of affairs in a given organization will deal a severe blow to productivity & progress. You cannot expect subjugated employees to use the best of their capabilities & many of them will adopt the negative attitude of "Who cares?"!

"The curse of knowledge"

Philosophy is the protein of the atoms or minutes and that protein is only getting sprouted to projects or physics. Rest all things are just like weeds and may not sustain and keep on asking without taking any effort to understand or to consume.

I summarize it into the following: politics, priorities, image and budget.

Im my opinion, in many enterprises exists a overvaluation of the academic titles and the allocation of persons with only theoretical knowledge, directly in functions like supervisors and coordinators, without a minimum previous experience in operational functions. A lack of mentoring of their superiors worsts the problem.

The whole idea of lack of empowerment by the leadership in organizations to tohse in the front line can be attributted o lack of trust by the managment as well as power conciousness . The fear of losing the grip of authority by the management brings about this drawback syndrome.

There have been many great insights posted for this question. I would add a simple suggestion - it is perceived as 'easier and quicker' to move forward without full consultation. Speaking with front line employees takes time and effort. It also takes putting our ego aside to acknowledge that you do not have all the answers. Some executives lose sight of that as they climb the ladder.

We grappled with this question of a regular basis in my MBA program. The CEO and executives are concerned with strategic direction and "big picture" movement of the company. The lower managerial ranks are concerned with translating this into tactical moves which the employees enact to achieve the goals. The informative flow back up the chain should then validate or show the errors to be fixed for strategic growth. If done effectively, the theory is that the CEO does NOT need to be concerned with micro-managing the work force. The reality is that the objectivity of this system is compromised. Peer competition at the managerial level produces territoriality and protectionism. Employees may also lose sense of direction if not properly rewarded. CEO may be unwilling to take advice on course change, etc. The end result is that "dream companies" to work for are employee-centric although the vast majority of companies follow a traditionally separated system. I think it's best to work with high interaction with employees and look at raw incoming data as much as possible.

The problem begins when upper management loses track of what is actually being done and concentrates solely upon what they imagine should be done or wish could be done. Vision is essential to move an organization forward. However, there is an old army saying that goes: "When you are up to your rear in alligators, it is hard to remember that your original mission was to drain the swamp!" A good leader not only knows where they want to go, they know how to get there and provide their people with the resources and leadership to achieve the goal. Otherwise, you are asking the troops to round up the unicorns and ride.

There is much to say about management by walking around. When a leader gets so focused on what they do within their office and lose touch with those in the organization who are actually performing the critical task, as in the case of higher education, the faculty, they either have failed or are destined to fail. The University of Mississippi was recently sued in federal court by a faculty member who was denied tenure. The faculty members evaluations for five years were extremely positive and there were no negative issues within his body of work that were ever in question. Faculty members that observed the process unfolding of the denial of tenure were documented in making the administration aware of the problem that was unfolding. In courtroom testimony, the former Chancellor stated that tenure and promotion was not an important issue to him while he was in a leadership position. It is hard for me to believe that any real leader could feel the welfare of those in his or her organization is not important.

In healthy organizations they do listen. This is the whole basis of "Theory Z" style management. However, often management takes a "we know what is best for you" attitude. This actually means "this is best for us" as management. It may or may not be what is best for the organization.

Dear all and future contributors to this chat line. There is an amazing degree of insight on what happens to senior management and why they fail to understand or consider the perspective and experience of front line or lower level employees in their organization. Following is a small summary of points which may apply to different individuals:

a) ego and tendency to believe he/she is smarter, better and more 'deserving' than anyone below them

b) lack of ability to communicate with anyone of a different perspective

c) feels threatened and disrespected when told he/she has something wrong or has made an error of judgement - hence defensiveness and digging in the heels (even using the court system to win)

d) stress and lack of time to seek out or deal with feedback from others

e) arrogance, self-righteousness and competitiveness

f) laziness - its easier to be a controller of maintenance system than to be a creator and builder of new and more effective systems.

g) lack of emotional intelligence to understand others

(I am sure I have missed some valuable points so please do add them to the list)

The result - excessive management privileges and benefits, poor management decisions, bullying, high organizational turnover as the brightest and most frustrated leave, poor workplace culture, poor employee engagement, poor organizational performance, etc.

So given our experiences with poor management (leadership) in our organizations, what experiences have you had with an exceptional manager (leader)? What do they do that makes them exceptional? How do they manage their time and workload demands to still take the time to listen to the people in their organization? How do they get the best out of their employees?

Wendy Rowe

I would like to acknowledge Jamiu Busari and his excellent article. (see above). In his article he describes the steps he and others took to create a system of inquiry, creativity, collaboration, and strategic action. He noted that system change is required for managers to be able to listen to the people in their organization; he described many of these practices but also the barriers. Yes it is true that senior managers and executives often operate from different paradigm and priorities - often more concerned about the financial bottom line than quality care or products. So how is it is possible to put quality service/care/product on equal footing with financial imperatives, and create the conditions for managers and employees to all be part of a solution that includes a healthy, engaged workforce oriented to successful operations and performance?

Thank you very much Wendy, for the kind feedback. Two things that come to my mind in response to your questions (and as it applies to health care) are: one, to have self reflective and emotionally intelligent leaders who have the capacity to identify/relate to the needs of patients and frontline care providers. For this, having a background in the frontline health care delivery process would constitute the second recommendation. We can conveniently draw this line of thinking to other professional domains, where the leaders in those contexts are expected to demonstrate emotional intelligence and self reflective capacities as well as possess domain specific expertise/competencies to lead the organisations they head.

Meritocracy seems to be dying, at least in American workplaces, as competition is fast on the way to becoming another of George Carlin's words you can't say on TV. I have the good fortune to have a manager with very strong EQ capabilities who started out in the same position I am and after ten years with the company he became the shift supervisor. Having done the work that everyone he manages is doing provides a great deal of insight and empathy into the trials and tribulations that his employees are going through on a day to day basis. The building I work in is not the same building the manager works in however, and the manager of the building I work in does not have the same empathy or merit that my department manager does. My building manager's personal life is in shambles, and it translates to the office going the same direction. The workplace culture is one where success depends on destroying, professionally and personally, those around you for the amusement of the practice manager so she will favor you in order to survive. I have adopted the strategy of defeating her argumentatively in front of HR and her management peers to the effect of humiliating her into leaving me alone. She counters with attacking, either directly or via proxies, one of my friends who is not as willing to fight 'city hall' as I am or to accept my help out of fear for her continued employment. Those who can by and large have either left or are in the process of leaving, and those still around tend to be either burned out and counting the days to retirement, fresh graduates with no marketable experience, or the current favorites. Turnover here is higher than any other place I have worked, but rather than change anything management feels that in a recession economy they can treat employees how they want to and the employee can either tolerate it or give up their job. I will be leaving for greener pastures in less than a month; the company is re-arranging my schedule and sending me to management school. Wendy Rowe is spot on with her bullet point assessment of managerial difficulties, and the next generation of leaders would be well advised to nota bene.

Way too often they get lost in their jobs and fail to remain connected, or were never connected, with those performing the critical services within the organization. Sometimes it is good to ask the janitor what is going on, the answers may surprise you.

Great points throughout. Yes, intellectual engagement from the top with those throughout the organization is essential,

Focusing on one's own job to move it forward toward one or more of a company's goals is one of the most difficult skills to master.

Apart from all the comments, good management needs well defined goals including: personal-individual development of employees oriented towards building a professional community; also, fostering environmental atmosphere; professional, adequate strategies in relevance to subjective-participatory paradigm; appropriate assessment instruments for testing realization of the goals mentioned. What's more, I think that administrative procedures, lack of courageous responsibility to face up the problems of employees make the goals hard to achieve.

Executives of an organization can be likened to fathers in the house. they do listen to every suggestions but its up to them to sift and make the best decision based on resources available. As such, it may seem they are not listening because you never saw your suggestion been put into action. However, they normally know what is best based on prevailing circumstances. for instant, you might suggest to them that an increase in workers incentive will motivate them to work harder, however, if the available working capital is not sufficient, they might ignore your suggestion and that does not mean your suggestion was not good enough.

It's a bad managerial practice. The executive team must liaise with the front liners and iron out differences in views as per the set organizational objectives and available resources. A good organizational managerial approach is the one that weighs every suggestion by everyone including, bottom liners and clients.

Following

Following too

One can listen but still not hear.

Many years ago UK business was plagued by class, whereby only upper class people, educated privately, survivors of Oxbridge, and friends with executives in other UK businesses became company directors. Entrepreneurs from other classes did well in select businesses such as technology and retail. These upper class directors were sure of themselves and helped drive companies close to bankruptcy. They had the right to rule, and considered themselves the designated managerial class.

Why should they listen to those of a lower class? Layers occur in society. People with things in common attain a certain level and fight to retain their status and privileges. Passive aggression comes into it. Others, those they consider less than them, are deliberately not listened to as the prevailing group consider themselves the managerial class-those who dictate, who decide things. Although that ruling group may change, the attitudes can remain the same.

In the mid 2000s this occurred in the financial sector, with calamitous results.

I've worked amongst top/senior management level in a university for 20 years. This has enabled me to observe the following basic "realities" :

I think that there is starting to be a transition. Some institutions and companies, and particularly in elementary & secondary education, are starting to realize that those front line workers have valuable insight and contributions to make. The creation of this collaborative culture should be supported by executives, as it will only benefit their organization. I came across a video the other day known as "The Suit with the Fruit". He does a great job of explaining how he transitioned his company away from the traditional old top down model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POpHdwsOi1k

Organizational relationship exist vertically as well horizontally. Vertical is arithmatic successive career of intra-active path way of improved quality heirarchy from 1 to 12 Suns.

Horizontal relationship is of progressive interactive mathematics and algebric elements around 2+2, 8 x8 (additions, sustractions and square versions).Planets and stars.

The centric leader is the Moon of empowerment or of waning.

Back in the 70s or 80s, Tom Peters wrote "In Search of Excellence" and subsequently "In Search of Customers" and other books, he profiled companies that were run a little differently and that spelled success. One thing he pointed out that has stuck with me is that the front line workers- those with the most customer contact - are the lowest paid and have the least power. When we call to complain, that's who we talk to. Companies that empowered their front line people had happier and more loyal customers.

I suspect that management doesn't usually listen to their front line people because they are the lowest paid and least powerful. Honestly, I think the hierarchy is economic.