Management by walking around also referred to as management by wandering around is a style of management that entails managers often reserving time to walk around their departments while holding impromptu discussions with employees and checking on the status of work and equipment. The emphasis in this wandering is randomness since these walks are not planned, and employees are not expecting any visit from their managers. During such movements, employers interact with employees, examine their working conditions and develop close relationships with them (The Economist, 2008) . The main idea is that managers get to understand concerns, realities, and problems first hand. Managers thus teach employees new ways of task execution as they also get to understand employee approaches.
This approach is often met with surprise since modern technologies have significantly reduced the need for physical contact, especially between senior and junior staff. The model recognizes that employers have turned offices into fortresses from which they hardly emerge. Edicts are sent to the workforce with whom there is limited face to face contact. The outside world is kept outside by a secretary who sits on the front of the office like a guard dog. Management by walking around deems this mode of management to be anachronistic and thus prioritizes contact between workers. This open style management was popularized by the computer giant HP, and soon thereafter, this practice spread across the United States.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In hospitals, management by walking around has been widely used as a technique. It entails senior hospital managers marinating an eye on frontline work and helping in the identification and resolution of obstacles. The practice has gained wide acceptance particularly amongst policymakers and thought leaders across the United States and the United Kingdom (Tucker & Singer, 2013) . Since MBWA relies on managers making frequent and learner-oriented visits to the frontline of hospital work, it is expected that in doing so, they are going to demonstrate a willingness to participate, understanding that every person in the workplace is important and trustworthy, and is willing to receive the opinion of others.
MBWA has close parallels to the Gemba Walks system that has been adopted in the Toyota production system. During ‘Gemba Walk,' managers go to different working stations, observe the processes and engage with employees. Thus, MBWA places the manager at the center of problem identification and resolution (Tucker & Singer, 2013) . This, it needs to be noted, is largely in contrast to most quality improvement literature that emphasizes employee identification and resolution of frontline work difficulties. More recent quality improvement research, however, has appreciated the importance of both the manager and the employee in such exercises. Senior managers can be critical in addressing challenges since they are actively involved in capital investment on various aspects of work as well as the fact that they possess the requisite perspective for solving problems that demand cross organizational boundaries (Bergh & Fairbank, 2002) . Furthermore, extensive employee involvement in the resolution of challenges may occasion abandonment of crucial frontline responsibilities that are extremely sensitive in the context of a hospital.
The near intuitive value of such an approach is hard to deny. The obvious benefit is that it leads to more effective resolution of challenges. They are identified early by an objective eye that keeps on moving around. Addressing emerging challenges within the context of a health system is of paramount importance. Edward Deming, one of the progenitors of this approach, observes that big challenges typically go unnoticed since they are in the least expected place. He thinks MBWA helps in the identification of the concealed problems. Such intervention enriches the process of resource allocation and problem resolution in the future even in the absence of senior staff (Reason, 2000) .
The value of MBWA has also been recognized in organizations facing exceptional forms of stress for instance after the massive reorganization of organizational structure or in the case of corporates, before a takeover. Nonetheless, its practice in the organization should be started earlier else it will be a source of stress for employees.
The approach has the additional value of boosting the morale of the employees. It sends a clear signal that they are not the ones involved in the attainment of organizational goals and that the management is intimately involved in the process. This leads to identification with what is being done as opposed to merely following a routine. The interaction with employees is also an opportunity for the managers to share the values, goals, and aspirations of the organization both in the short and long run.
The physical presence is also an indication that the management is taking its work seriously thus reducing the tendency to laxity. Moreover, it shows that the management is concerned about the welfare of employees and improvement of work thus spurring discretionary initiatives which are essential for process improvement. Some have also suggested that it helps build team spirit as more free engagement with management intensifies (Tucker & Singer, 2013) .
The effects of MBWA are nonetheless not always positive. Employees who are subjected to regular visits may interpret them as the administration’s attempt to spy on them and as such deemed to be engaged in breach of trust and privacy. In addition, skewed interaction with employees may lead to feelings of discriminations thus lowering morale (Dow, Samson, & Ford, 1999) . However, the attempt to give equal attention may lead to managers spending too much of their time such that they abandon their most essential work. There are also the additional dangers that commitments made to employees in the course of interaction are not kept and that the relationships transcend professional boundaries.
References
Bergh, D., & Fairbank, F. (2002). Measuring and testing change in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 23 , 359-366.
Dow, D., Samson, D., & Ford, S. (1999). Exploding the myth: Do all quality management practices contribute to superior quality performance? Prod. Oper Manage , 1-27.
Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. British Medical Journal , 768-770.
The Economist. (2008). Management by walking about. The Economist\ .
Tucker, A. L., & Singer, S. (2013). The Effectiveness of Management-By-Walking-Around: A Randomized Field. Harvard Business School .
