I have been thinking about this for some time, though I have rarely spoken about it directly.
Leadership has no hard and fast rules. Different leaders lead differently. Some are charismatic and expressive. Some are quiet and measured. Context matters. Culture matters. Timing matters.
Yet after years of observing organisations and institutions, particularly academic institutions, I have noticed a recurring pattern: the most effective leaders are often not the loudest. They are not those who speak the most, hold the most townhalls, or dominate every meeting.
They usually talk less, but they are very clear.
Many institutions, however, equate leadership with activity. This tendency is especially visible in academic environments, where dialogue, discourse, and consultation are deeply embedded in the culture. The more meetings held, the more briefings organised, the more visible the leader, the stronger the leadership is assumed to be. Busyness becomes a proxy for effectiveness. Visibility is mistaken for impact.
I am no longer convinced that this assumption holds.
Consider a common example: the townhall. Once a year, it can be helpful. It is an opportunity to reset, align, and reconnect. In universities, townhalls, special briefings, academic assemblies, retreats, and endless committee meetings are often justified in the name of collegiality and inclusiveness. But when these gatherings become frequent, routine, and repetitive, they quietly begin to cost more than they contribute.
This cost is not only time. It is focus.
A simple way to see it is this:
Productivity loss (hours) = People × Time
If 1,000 staff stop working for 3 – 4 hours, the lost work time is already substantial, especially in institutions where teaching, research, supervision, and administrative responsibilities are already stretched.
But the deeper issue is that not all “time spent” creates value. The real loss depends on clarity. How relevant, actionable, and meaningful the message is.
So a more useful expression is:
Loss of productivity = People × Time × (1 − Clarity)
Time alone does not determine loss. Clarity does. When clarity is high, even a short interruption can create alignment and momentum. When clarity is low, a long session becomes an expensive distraction.
If we want to translate this into cost (especially for management conversations), we can extend it one step further:
Productivity cost = People × Time × Cost per hour × (1 − Clarity)
Many leaders do not realise how quickly the numbers escalate, especially when similar events repeat several times a year. In academic institutions, this cost is often hidden, because outcomes are not always measured in immediate financial terms. The loss shows up later, as delayed research output, slower curriculum improvement, administrative fatigue, or disengaged academics who feels listened to, but not led.
This is why productivity erosion is so difficult to detect. Attendance may be high. Slides may be polished. Applause may be courteous. Yet little changes on the ground. People return to work with the same ambiguity, the same constraints, and sometimes with a little more fatigue than before.
Over time, I began to see leadership through a simple lens: activity versus clarity.
High activity without clarity creates noise.
High activity with clarity creates short-term alignment.
Low activity without clarity creates confusion.
Low activity with clarity creates focus, trust, and sustained performance.
The mistake many leaders make is substituting clarity with activity. In academic settings, this is often reinforced by the belief that more discussion automatically leads to better decisions. When outcomes do not improve, the instinctive response is to do more. Yes, more meetings, more briefings, longer speeches, louder reminders. It feels responsible. It looks like leadership. But often it is avoidance.
Avoidance of hard thinking.
Avoidance of difficult prioritisation.
Avoidance of saying no to initiatives that no longer matter.
Speaking more is easier than deciding what truly deserves attention.
In contrast, the most effective leaders I have observed, including within universities, are disciplined. They are clear about what they want to achieve. They focus relentlessly on a small number of priorities. They do not confuse people with shifting messages or endless slogans. Once direction is set, they trust the organisation to move.
But clarity alone is not enough.
These leaders also show empathy. They understand the realities on the ground. They empower. They allow people to make decisions within clear boundaries. They also enable. They remove obstacles rather than add new ones. And they demonstrate equity. Treating people fairly, consistently, and with respect.
This combination matters. Clarity without empathy becomes authoritarian. Empowerment without clarity becomes chaos. Activity without equity breeds resentment.
True leadership, I have learned, is quieter than we imagine. It shows itself not in how often people gather to listen, but in how well they act when the leader is not around. When clarity exists, fewer reminders are needed. Decisions happen faster. Trust grows naturally.
Productivity is not lost because people stop working.
It is lost when leaders stop being clear.
Sometimes, saying less is not a weakness.
It is a sign that leadership has already done its job.
Prof. Azizi is a senior academic at Malaysian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship and Business (MGSEB), UMK (https://mgseb.umk.edu.my) and former university leader with experience in research policy, academic governance, and innovation strategy. He currently teaches and consults on higher education and entrepreneurship and can be contacted at [email protected].
