Couple of thoughts on this: Good managers have a worldview, and they learn to communicate effectively. Its much more efficient, functional, and practical. That is the art of leadership, vs babysitting (or helicopter parenting, etc).
Consider the counter-example: The worst manager is one is unpredictable, all over the place, capricious. He cannot scale, however smart he is. Beacuse nobody can decipher him. You cannot avoid or minimize a meeting, because you cannot prepare in advance for expected lines of reasoning, etc.
That's part of creating a culture and having values.
The best leaders I have ever worked for all had very stong, idiosynchratic lines of inquiry. They were all very tough, but always fair. You learned to "keep them in mind" as you did your work. Looking back, its very effective to help crystallize your own view in relation. That's how you develop.etc.
So, in some sense this is independent of "approachable". You don't always want to be approachable. You want people to work independently but under a common vision. You want them to internalize things. Then, for the nuance, the edge case, the final decision/s...they can come and have a chat.
Thus one sets out the right time and a right place to be approachable. But the context is critically important to distinguish. The questions and issues you raise need to be thought of inside the bigger picture. For things to make sense. Hope this helps.
Couple of thoughts on this: Good managers have a worldview, and they learn to communicate effectively. Its much more efficient, functional, and practical. That is the art of leadership, vs babysitting (or helicopter parenting, etc).
Consider the counter-example: The worst manager is one is unpredictable, all over the place, capricious. He cannot scale, however smart he is. Beacuse nobody can decipher him. You cannot avoid or minimize a meeting, because you cannot prepare in advance for expected lines of reasoning, etc.
That's part of creating a culture and having values.
The best leaders I have ever worked for all had very stong, idiosynchratic lines of inquiry. They were all very tough, but always fair. You learned to "keep them in mind" as you did your work. Looking back, its very effective to help crystallize your own view in relation. That's how you develop.etc.
So, in some sense this is independent of "approachable". You don't always want to be approachable. You want people to work independently but under a common vision. You want them to internalize things. Then, for the nuance, the edge case, the final decision/s...they can come and have a chat.
Thus one sets out the right time and a right place to be approachable. But the context is critically important to distinguish. The questions and issues you raise need to be thought of inside the bigger picture. For things to make sense. Hope this helps.