Seven reasons why leaders must leave the room
As a litmus test of efficacy, what happens when a leader is absent can say much more about them and those they lead, than what happens when they are present. It is easy to underestimate the potency of leadership presence and the extent to which it can create an atmosphere as well as transform an existing one.
Understandably, we look to leadership for guidance, direction and assurance. However, it is this propensity to over-emphasise the physical presence of a leader, that can sometimes manifest unintended consequences. This is because when a leader is present it is so much easier to outsource thinking, defer decision-making and [depending on the personality of the individual] be intimidated into silence. Therefore, one of the most important competencies that a leader can learn and demonstrate is when to be absent.
Set out below, are seven reasons why leaders must leave the room.
1. To safeguard against the risk of subservience
Followers can be naturally deferential towards a leader. By itself, there is nothing wrong with deference. The problem arises when deference edges towards subservice. When this happens individuals may perceive themselves and their contributions as being of lesser value. A subservient posture can also lead to risks being ignored, which can increase the likelihood of hazards, harms and damage. Whenever leaders perceive an unhealthy culture of deference, they must be prepared to leave the room and allow their subordinates, to work things out for themselves without the presence of an authority figure to distract them.
2. To activate initiative
One of the most valued characteristics of leadership is the ability to communicate clearly. Unfortunately, clarity is the enemy of ambiguity. If a leader is uncomfortable with ambiguity, they will be indecisive, lack the capacity to think on their feet and struggle when situations arise that require initiative. For that reason, even when able to offer clear guidance, leaders must initiate situations that require their subordinates to deal with ambiguity. This will help subordinates to hone the critical thinking, reasoning and logic that are essential to leadership competence. These capabilities will be forged in your absence, not in your presence.
3. To empower creative capacity
Whilst leadership presence can stimulate energy for problem-solving, it can also have a dampening effect, stifling creative thinking, sucking the oxygen out of a room and choking off innovation. This is because when leaders are in the room [especially those with dominant personalities] the tendency is for all eyes to focus in their direction. Self-aware leaders with the capacity to understand the risk of this type of behaviour, will adopt ‘tactical visibility’. To that extent, they will be present only when necessary to check on progress, kick-start stalled momentum or sign off on draft recommendations.
4. To legitimise dissent
As a leader, if you are squeamish about the thought of people whispering behind your back, then the business of leadership is not for you. A confident leader with their finger on the collective pulse, understands that empowering others to express dissent [whether in public or private] is evidence of a healthy team dynamic, not a dysfunctional one. Therefore, because they understand it, they should actively encourage it. A capacity for sound judgment, means that a leader will know when they need to be present so that others can talk to them and when to leave the room for others to talk about them.
5. To cultivate a succession culture
Probably the best environment for leadership development is a vacuum. In the absence of leadership, people intuitively and invariably organise and in these moments the latent potential of would-be leaders begins to emerge. If those responsible for overseeing subordinates are ever-present then there is no vacuum to fill and little or none of this potential will break to the surface. Leaders must be confident enough to vacate space for others in the knowledge that leadership is not what happens when you are present, it is what happens in your absence
6. To stop performative behaviours
Those who have occupied leadership roles will be familiar with the performative behaviours of subordinates, which can manifest whenever a leader is in the room. This kind of conduct happens at every organisational level and sadly betrays both the personality of the individuals [likely high maintenance and attention seeking] as well as the teams and organisations that they work for [edging towards toxic and dysfunctional]. One of the easiest ways to curtail this kind of irritating behaviour is for leaders not to spend any more time in the room than is necessary. Just as you should not ignore it with your silence; you should not reward it with your presence.
7. To let things fail
The notion that anyone in a leadership position would allow failure through commission, seems counter-intuitive. Notwithstanding, there are occasions when the most important service that a leader can perform is to do just that. In leadership if success is contingent on you being in the room, then it is likely that your presence is only masking the incapability of those around you. There are times in leadership when the only way to establish the true competence of others is when you leave the room. When leaders see the veneer of success as more important than the opportunity to confront failure, they not only deceive themselves they deceive others.
For the most part, there are few hard and fast rules about when it is best for a leader to leave the room. Each situation will be different. Clearly, when facing a genuine crisis or emergency, one would rightly expect a leader to be present. However, these types of scenarios ought to be the exception, not the rule. As set out in the introduction to this blog, much will also depend on the personality of the leader themselves. A domineering or over-bearing personality will probably need to be absent far more frequently than one who is more facilitative and engaging.
