I've been doing culture and change work long enough to recognize early warning signs of failure.

Yellow flags.

Signals that don't show up in project plans or dashboards, but reliably predict how things will unfold.

One of the most common warning signs is when I start to hear the same statements repeatedly from multiple sources:

"I don't have time."

"I'm too busy."

I hear this from leaders in the context of culture work, change initiatives, and transformation efforts, whatever label we want to use. Often it's said casually. Sometimes defensively. Occasionally with good intent.

But over time, I've learned to hear it differently. Not as a scheduling issue. As a leadership signal.

Time is the only resource distributed equally. CEOs do not get more hours than frontline supervisors.

What leaders do get is discretion.

So when leaders say "I don't have time," what they are often really saying is:

• This does not rank high enough to receive my discretionary attention
• I do not see this as core to my leadership role
• I believe progress can happen without my presence

That's not a scheduling issue. That's a leadership belief.

What We Mean by "Culture Work"

Let me be clear about what I mean by culture work, because it has become an overused term.

Culture work is not:

• Attending workshops
• Endorsing initiatives
• Delegating responsibility to HR or OD
• Having already "gone through the training" to check a box

Culture work is about changing how leaders and organizations behave under pressure.

It's about how decisions get made. How conversations happen. How meetings are run. How accountability is handled. How leaders show up when things feel uncertain or strained.

Workshops may support that, but they are not the work itself.

"I Don't Have Time" Is Not Neutral

When leaders say "I don't have time" or "I'm too busy," they are rarely trying to disengage. Most are overloaded, stretched thin, and carrying real pressure.

But systems don't respond to intent. They respond to impact.

"Systems" are how people coordinate work and make sense of uncertainty based on where leaders are visibly present or absent.

To people inside the organization, "I don't have time" often lands very differently:

• This work is not important enough to warrant leadership attention
• You will need to manage the uncertainty without me
• Results and operations matter more than how people are experiencing this moment
• Leadership presence is optional when things get hard

None of that needs to be said out loud. It is inferred.

The Missed Opportunity Cost

What's often missed is the opportunity cost.

In moments of uncertainty, leadership presence is a stabilizing force. Even brief, imperfect presence can reduce speculation, calm anxiety, and create shared understanding.

When leaders opt out, something else fills the space. Rumors. People compensating for the absence of clear leadership. Decisions made without alignment. Quiet disengagement.

Leadership presence is not free.

It costs a leader's time, attention, and the willingness to slow down long enough to be available to what's happening in the system.

But leadership absence is not neutral.

When leaders step away, the organization does not pause. Work continues, decisions get made, and uncertainty has to be managed by someone. In the absence of visible leadership, people fill the gaps themselves, often by guessing, compensating, and acting without alignment. Anxiety spreads, assumptions replace clarity, and trust erodes quietly.

What "Presence" Actually Means (Practically)

When I say presence, I don't mean being in front of the room giving eloquent, visionary speeches.

I mean something far simpler.

Presence is the choice to be fully WITH what is happening in the room, without signaling distraction, hierarchy, or urgency elsewhere.

For a busy executive, that can look like:

• Sitting in a session without multitasking, even if you've already been through the content
• Staying engaged rather than signaling impatience or superiority
• Listening for how people are responding, not just what is being said
• Letting the room know, nonverbally, that nothing else matters for this bounded period of time

It's not about content. It's about attention.

Being on your phone, stepping in and out, or projecting busyness doesn't just manage time. It manages distance.

A Small Moment That Says Everything

I once sat beside a CEO at the front of a large town hall. This was the launch of a major innovation initiative. The room was full. Energy was high.

When the emcee turned the time over for the CEO's opening remarks, the CEO was on his phone. He raised his index finger to signal "wait," leaving the emcee standing awkwardly in front of more than a hundred people.

The CEO eventually spoke, but the message had already landed.

That single moment communicated far more than any words that followed. And it wasn't isolated. It was emblematic of how this leader showed up.

A Fair Word About Leaders

To be fair, many leaders are also exhausted and burned out. Disengagement is often self-protection, not indifference.

Some worry that being present means absorbing everyone else's stress, or slipping into co-dependence.

But presence isn't about fixing emotions or carrying the system on your back. It's about not abandoning the system when it's under strain.

Increasingly, I've found that part of my role as a coach is simply to offer leaders a place to regulate, so they can show up more steadily for their people.

The Question Worth Asking

So when leaders say, "I don't have time," the real question isn't about calendars.

It's this:

What am I communicating by my absence? And what might become possible, even briefly, if I chose presence instead?

That's not a moral judgment. It's a leadership mirror.

And mirrors, when we're willing to look, can change how we show up.