New York Times: Marissa Shandell and Courtney Elliott.
Standfirst: New research by Adam Grant and colleagues argues that return-to-office mandates are often less about productivity or culture — and more about power, status and executive ego.
Clean English version
When the pandemic ended, many employees assumed remote work would remain part of normal office life. At least a few days at home each week seemed reasonable.
But in the U.S., roughly a third of companies have now ordered employees back to the office full time and banned remote or hybrid work.
Some executives say the policy is about productivity. The evidence does not clearly support that. Others point to collaboration, creativity or culture. But new research by Adam Grant, Marissa Shandell and Courtney Elliott points to a different driver: ego.
The authors argue that, while some teams do need in-person work, blanket return-to-office mandates are often a power move. Leaders with more narcissistic traits tend to see remote work as a threat to their authority, status and visibility.
Over six years, the researchers surveyed thousands of executives, middle managers and frontline supervisors. They examined several personality traits, then compared them with attitudes toward hybrid and remote work.
The result was striking. Opposition to remote work did not consistently track with trust in employees or a preference for social contact. The strongest predictor was narcissism: self-centeredness, entitlement and a desire for status.
The same pattern appeared among Fortune 500 chief executives. Since their egos could not be measured directly, the researchers used proxies that earlier studies have linked to narcissism: compensation size, signature size and the prominence of CEO photos in corporate reports.
Executives who scored higher on those measures were more likely to seek power and status through board roles and chairmanships. They were also more likely to make negative statements about remote and hybrid work during the first two years of the pandemic.
The researchers also found evidence of causation. In one experiment, leaders were asked to reflect on how bold, assertive egos shaped the success of figures such as Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison. After that exercise, they became more likely to oppose remote work.
The point is not that every anti-remote-work leader is an egomaniac. Workplace policy depends on many factors. But the data suggests that self-centered leaders are less comfortable with employees choosing where they work.
Psychologists have long compared narcissism to a drug. It creates a craving for attention, validation and admiration. Remote work interrupts that supply.
When employees are not in the office, leaders lose some of the old tools of control. They cannot hover over desks, summon people into rooms, slam doors or dominate through physical presence.
They also lose the emotional reward of being visibly admired. On a video call, the boss is just another square on the screen. Instead of a captive audience, they face fatigue, distractions, delayed replies and glitchy expressions. Even flattery lands differently over Slack.
The authors argue that some leaders respond by tightening control. They frame remote work as shirking. They threaten employees who do not appear in the office five days a week.
But the evidence suggests that strict return-to-office mandates often backfire. Studies covering hundreds of companies and millions of employees found that such mandates do not improve financial performance. They do, however, increase the risk of losing top talent, reduce employee satisfaction and make recruitment harder.
Experiments in technology companies and nonprofits show that allowing people to work from home part of the week can increase happiness and reduce turnover by about a third, without hurting performance. In many cases, employees get more done because they avoid commuting and office interruptions.
There are limits. Working from home more than half the week can be isolating. It can make it harder to build culture, mentor junior staff and create informal learning moments. But those goals do not require five days a week in the office.
Hybrid work can produce better results when designed well. Employees can use one or two days at home for deep individual work, and spend the rest of the week on collaboration, communication and problem-solving.
Too much togetherness has costs too. It can produce groupthink and reduce fresh thinking. Some distance can help people generate better ideas and make smarter decisions.
The authors propose several rules for making hybrid work succeed.
First, coordination matters. Teams need anchor days when everyone comes in, especially for onboarding and mentoring.
Second, intensity matters more than frequency. A well-designed quarterly team gathering can do more for connection than forcing people into the office every day.
Third, hybrid work should not be one-size-fits-all. Different jobs need different levels of in-person time. Different people need different kinds of flexibility. The authors note that flexibility is especially important for attracting and retaining women.
Fourth, many employees care more about when they work than where. When people have control over their hours, they are often more willing to accept limits on location.
The authors’ bottom line is direct: workplace policy should not become a vanity project. A leader’s job is not to force the world to satisfy their ego. It is to adapt to the needs of the organization, even when that means leading without the thrill of a live audience.