The Globe and Mail

This is one of those articles that you pray is true.

BusinessWeek has a piece by Edward E. Lawler III, a business professor and the author of Talent: Making People Your Competitive Advantage . In fact, it was adapted from his book. The title is “Good Riddance to the Imperial CEO.” Well, huzzah to that!

Lawler writes that enlightened C-level executives have realized that separating themselves from the rank and file is one of the worst ways to lead. Being a cloistered, privileged executive is a sure fire way to become out of touch with the operations of a company. Lawler also cites examples to demonstrate that it's a path to the unemployment line.

Here's how he describes an “imperial CEO”:

They make decisions and develop strategies with little input and discussion. Their decisions are above criticism and challenge. They adopt lifestyles that make them celebrities, and their companies become vehicles that make them "rock stars." They are supported by technology that is designed to keep them in touch 24/7. But in reality, most imperial CEOs are dangerously out of touch with the people they lead, particularly when it comes to the issue of strategy implementation and development. Often they don't hear bad news until it is too late (witness today's problems in financial firms).

And here's what happened to a few of them:

Some firings of high-profile CEOs suggest that corporate boards are recognizing that imperial CEOs may not be the best CEOs. In 2005, CEO Carly Fiorina was fired by the board of Hewlett-Packard (HPQ). Hank Greenberg, was forced out at American International Group (AIG) after three decades. Perhaps the most visible case was the firing of Bob Nardelli by Home Depot (HD) following his dreadful decision to have his board of directors not attend the company's annual meeting.

The point here is that people matter. If a CEO focuses more on taking advantage of perks, speaking at conferences, and wooing investors, she risks alienating employees and becoming out of touch with how the company really functions. The CEO of Boeing drove this point home when he said employees “have got to know that working with them is more important to me than public forums where I'm making big speeches.”

I also love another example Lawler cites. Frank Blake took over as CEO of Home Depot after the aforementioned Bob Nardelli was fired. Here's how he ended imperial rule at that company:

In addition to taking a much lower salary, Blake discontinued the catered executive luncheon that the company's top management team had enjoyed under Bob Nardelli and "suggested" that the members of senior management eat in the cafeteria with the other employees. This sent a clear message to the employees that Blake intended to be a different kind of leader.

“Yes, strategies to increase a business' success are certainly essential and can be time-consuming to develop and implement,” Lawler writes. “But even the smallest act—like eating lunch with an employee—goes a long way toward establishing positive relationships with staff as well as helping the ‘chiefs' more effectively solicit constructive feedback and input from employees.”

All hail the non-imperial chief!