Some people say that the company is the boss, and the boss can do it without punching in, but the executives must punch in. But if the company has many shareholders, and the shareholders are also executives, what will they do if the boss doesn't punch in? If they can do this, should non-shareholder executives step in?
This brings us the problem of hierarchical management. People at the top, middle and grassroots levels have different values. Which can be measured with the same ruler? Take punching in, for example. For grass-roots employees, they take it for granted. For middle managers, this is understandable, but for senior leaders, it is hard to accept.
There are also the top management of the company, many of whom are talents introduced by the boss from various aspects. Because they are all talented people, most of them have some personalities. If the company lacks a unified cultural value system and system implementation system, blindly emphasizing the unity of the system will often hurt the feelings of executives, and the loss will outweigh the gain.
From this management concept, whether the executives punch in or not actually depends on the boss's idea. If the boss is as self-disciplined as ordinary employees and can go to work on time, then the supervisor must go to work. If the boss consciously can't follow the system, don't let these management play any cards.
Trust is more important to executives than supervision. As a supervisor and team leader, we don't need to question his self-discipline too much. Even if they don't clock in, they won't come later than the employees. As for the occasional personal thing, it is nothing compared with his value!