A growing body of research is challenging one of the most common justifications for forcing employees back into the office full time, with new research suggesting some return-to-office mandates may be driven more by leaders’ desire for control and status than concerns about productivity.
Researchers at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania found that opposition to remote and hybrid working was most strongly associated with narcissistic personality traits among managers and executives, rather than lower levels of trust or a preference for in-person interaction.
Employers continue to debate the future of flexible working arrangements, with some organisations insisting on full-time office attendance despite evidence suggesting that hybrid models can improve retention and employee satisfaction.
Bosses’ opinions of themselves and remote work
The study, published in The New York Times by organisational psychologist Adam Grant and doctoral researchers Marissa Shandell and Courtney Elliott, drew on six years of research involving executives, middle managers and frontline supervisors.
“The only trait that consistently predicted objections to remote work was narcissism — the tendency to be self-centered and entitled. The higher the opinions of themselves leaders expressed, the more they coveted power and status — and the more they favored return-to-office mandates,” they wrote.
“Since we couldn’t directly measure the size of their egos, we measured factors that many previous studies have identified as reliable proxies for narcissism: the sizes of their pay packages, their signatures and their photos in their company reports.
“We found that the higher chief executives scored on this index, the more likely they were to seek power and status by becoming chairmen of their own companies and joining the boards of other companies. These were the chief executives who made the most negative statements about remote and hybrid work during the first two years of the pandemic.”
Productivity argument challenged
The article argues that many employers continue to justify office attendance requirements on the grounds of productivity, collaboration or company culture, despite evidence suggesting the relationship is more complex.
Research cited by the authors found that return-to-office mandates did not improve financial performance but were associated with higher turnover among top-performing employees and lower satisfaction among those who remained.
Other studies referenced in the article suggested that allowing employees to work remotely for part of the week could reduce staff turnover while maintaining productivity levels.
The debate comes as organisations across the UK continue to reassess flexible working arrangements introduced during and after the pandemic.
Hybrid working remains popular
While the researchers were critical of full-time office mandates, they stopped short of advocating fully remote working for every organisation.
The article pointed to evidence suggesting that spending more than half the working week away from colleagues can make it harder to build relationships, support mentoring and encourage informal learning. Instead, the researchers argued that hybrid working often delivers the strongest outcomes by combining opportunities for collaboration in person with time for focused work away from workplace distractions.
This approach has increasingly been adopted by employers seeking to balance employee demand for flexibility with organisational needs around teamwork, culture and development.
But the researchers said: “Psychologists have long suggested that narcissism is like a drug — it leaves people craving a regular supply of attention and validation. Remote work deprives leaders of access to that supply.”
Recruitment and retention considerations
The debate over office attendance has become increasingly important as employers compete for talent in a labour market where flexibility remains a key consideration for many workers.
Research from a range of organisations, including technology companies and workplace specialists, has repeatedly found that employees place significant value on flexibility over where and when they work.
The Wharton researchers argued that organisations should base workplace policies on evidence rather than leadership preferences, warning that mandates imposed without a clear business case risk damaging engagement and making recruitment more difficult.
The findings are likely to add fuel to an ongoing debate about how much time employees should spend in the office and whether attendance policies are delivering the outcomes employers expect.
William Furney is a Managing Editor at Black and White Trading Ltd based in Kingston upon Hull, UK. He is a prolific author and contributor at Workplace Wellbeing Professional, with over 127 published posts covering HR, employee engagement, and workplace wellbeing topics. His writing focuses on contemporary employment issues including pension schemes, employee health, financial struggles affecting workers, and broader workplace trends.
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
