Genuine Attention: Why Presence in Leadership Matters

Photo by Yeshi Kangrang on Unsplash

How are leaders perceived? And which metrics mean the most? Pressure from organisational structures (expectations of speed, optimisation and unbeatable KPIs) quickly becomes corrosive to real human interaction. Meeting slots are full, calendars are packed, and words are exchanged constantly; but genuine connection rarely is. Employees spending their work life in a cycle without acknowledgement is a sure case for disengagement. This begs the question; does leadership fail because leaders lack answers…or because they lack presence? A presence in conversation, openness under pressure and the ability to remain calm in moments of provocation.

Attention (or lack of) may be the root of the leadership crisis. Research from 2019, by Arendt and colleagues, challenges what the real struggle in the relationship between employee and leader is. As it turns out, a team doesn’t disengage just because the strategy isn’t working or the vision is unclear, but when their needs don’t feel met. When they don’t feel listened to, understood or acknowledged. Leaders are a type of glue in an organisation, and it’s not only for the business, they are what hold a team together at the human level.

A leader who can practice mindfulness (and not in the wellness industry, ‘peace, calm and serenity’ kind of way), may be the best equipped. Mindfulness is more than an inner state of calmness, it’s about how that calm manifests into behaviour and communication. There are observable patterns of attended behaviour from a mindful individual; they are present with the ability to actually pay attention, to be neutral and open and can regulate their emotions despite pressure and stress, they are not governed by their big feelings. Followers of these kinds of leaders are more deeply satisfied, not only at the communication level, but of overall leadership.

Traditional leadership training assumes a very one dimensional approach; leaders are directors, communication is a transmission of information and influence is power over others. It may be a shift in expectation from modern professionals, or it could simply be that this kind of leadership was never sustainable, even if it appeared to work from a statistical lens. This kind of research suggests that influence emerges from relational quality as opposed to dominance or authority, communication is not a one way message but also involves receipt of the response and presence matters far more greatly than position.

It’s easily forgotten from an objective viewpoint that a person’s natural characteristics and psychological need is not left at the door once they step into the office. It’s a fundamental human requirement to be heard and understood. If a leader can cultivate an environment where people feel they have autonomy, value in their position and a sense of connection then they are able to meet those basic human needs.

 The troubling fact is that many organisations are designed to suppress presence, with goals driving a business and the mindsets of its employees into the future, people are pushed further away from the present. The duality of being both in the present for their people and the future for the business is not an easy task, but it’s definitely one of the most successful.

This kind of research is unquantifiable, perhaps mindfulness is easier in the hands of a great team and maybe teaching leaders how to pay attention is dependent on the individual. It’s the ambiguity of the insight that offers the thought experiment, what day to day experiences do we all have that support it? The state of one’s relationships, the output behind our most successful projects, the time we have spent giving people time instead of instruction, is there a commonality? How far do these traits go when integrated into all aspects of life and not only at work?

Leadership does not collapse because people are incapable, but because of their unconscious. From the perspective of depth psychologists, the inability to be mindful is due to the lack of integration of the shadow; no acknowledgement of old values they don’t align with in their conscious state or ignoring it to protect themselves from vulnerability or uncertainty. This indicates an incomplete version of the psyche. In leadership, the shadow shows up as compulsive control, emotional reactivity and subtle dehumanisation of others. Mindfulness, to a depth psychologist, is an act of psychological integration. Mindful communication is a mirror that reveals how much of leadership is driven by fear, habit or an unexamined need to matter. Presence interrupts the automatic patterns of the ego, creating space that the unconscious cannot disrupt. When a leader listens calmly and openly, they are doing more than communicating; they are containing anxiety, regulating a collective nervous system and allowing psychological safety in the workplace that is rooted in awareness, not authority.

For the full research paper published in Frontiers, Psychology, Volume 10, 2019, follow this link: Frontiers | Mindfulness and Leadership: Communication as a Behavioral Correlate of Leader Mindfulness and Its Effect on Follower Satisfaction

Follow The Heretic for more conversations about leadership and connection.