New findings suggest that scripted leadership walk-arounds may feel more like surveillance than support.
One of the most memorable scenes in Shakespeare is when King Henry V walks among his soldiers before the Battle of Agincourt, encouraging them face-to-face. That same idea has long inspired a management practice known as Management by Walking Around (MBWA)—leaders casually moving through the workplace, checking in with employees, offering guidance, and staying connected to daily operations.
The intent is positive: managers become more accessible, communication improves, and leaders stay informed. But new research suggests the strategy can have the opposite effect when it feels forced or artificial.
A study by two management professors at Idaho State University examined MBWA and found that employees may see it as performative when managers appear to be doing it simply because policy requires it. Instead of feeling supported, workers may feel monitored, leading to cynicism, distrust, and weaker communication across the organization.
Over time, many companies have formalized MBWA programs, especially in industries such as healthcare and manufacturing, where regulations or quality-control systems encourage regular supervisor check-ins. These programs are often designed to reduce mistakes, spark innovation, and improve outcomes.
However, employees are not passive participants. They interpret motives and notice authenticity. If a manager seems disengaged—or worse, appears to be using walk-arounds as subtle surveillance—the practice can quickly lose value.
The researchers describe a paradox: organizations may mandate more frequent supervisor interactions to improve connection, but if those interactions become overly routine or scripted, employees may dismiss them as shallow “drive-by” conversations with little real value. That can reduce trust not only in walk-arounds, but in other manager-employee interactions as well.
There are clear parallels with some modern workplace policies, such as strict return-to-office mandates or requiring cameras on during virtual meetings. While often framed as efforts to improve collaboration, they can also be perceived as signals of mistrust or control.
The key difference is authenticity.
According to one of the study’s authors, MBWA originally worked well at Hewlett-Packard in the 1980s because it was natural. Bill Hewlett and David Packard were not following a mandate—they were genuinely curious about what employees were doing and sincerely interested in helping.
That may be the central lesson for leaders today: successful management practices are hard to scale when the human relationships that made them effective are stripped away.
For organizations, the takeaway is simple:
If you practice MBWA yourself, do it for the right reasons. Be genuinely interested, listen carefully, and engage naturally.
If you require others to do it, reconsider making it mandatory. Employees can sense when interactions are just another task on a checklist.
Ultimately, meaningful workplace communication depends less on formal policies and more on authentic human connection.