The Hidden Motives Behind Return-to-Office Mandates: How Narcissistic Leadership Drives Remote Work Resistance

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
10 hours ago
23 min read

Listen to a review of this article:

Abstract: As organizations continue to debate flexible work arrangements in the post-pandemic era, a critical question remains underexplored: Why do some leaders resist remote work more than others? This article examines the personality and motivational factors underlying leadership opposition to virtual work arrangements, drawing on recent research by Shandell, Elliott, and Grant (2026) that integrates the extended agency model of narcissism with media richness theory. Their three empirical studies—archival analyses of Fortune 500 CEOs, multi-wave surveys of leaders, and experimental research—reveal that narcissistic leaders consistently resist remote work because it threatens their desires for power and status. While conventional wisdom attributes return-to-office mandates to productivity concerns or trust deficits, this analysis demonstrates that self-centered motivations rooted in leaders' needs to command attention, exercise control, and maintain social standing play a pivotal role. These findings challenge organizations to recognize how leadership personality shapes workplace flexibility decisions, often at the expense of employee retention and organizational performance. For practitioners navigating the future of work, understanding these psychological dynamics is essential for designing policies that balance legitimate business needs with the realities of modern talent management.

The Great Remote Work Divide

When the COVID-19 pandemic forced organizations worldwide to embrace remote work in 2020, many predicted a permanent shift in how and where work happens. Yet as offices reopened, a striking divergence emerged among leaders. Some embraced flexibility as the new normal, while others issued stern return-to-office mandates—sometimes threatening employees with termination regardless of performance outcomes. This polarization persists: as of early 2025, remote work accounts for approximately 25 percent of paid work hours in the United States, down from a pandemic peak of 60 percent but well above pre-2020 levels (Aksoy et al., 2025; Barrero et al., 2023). The question of whether employees should be required to work onsite remains contentious.

Research consistently shows that employees value flexible work arrangements for improved work-life balance and reduced commuting time. Moreover, evidence suggests that return-to-office mandates can be costly: they reduce employee satisfaction and retention while failing to improve firm performance (Bloom et al., 2024; Ding & Ma, 2024). Despite these findings, many leaders remain resolute in their opposition to remote work.

Prior scholarship has largely explained leader resistance through opportunity and ability barriers—technological constraints, financial limitations, or lack of experience with remote management tools. Yet as organizations have gained widespread access to sophisticated remote communication technologies, these structural explanations have become less compelling. This shift sets the stage for a different question: What role does leader personality play in resistance to remote work?

Recent research by Shandell, Elliott, and Grant (2026) provides compelling evidence that narcissism—a personality trait characterized by inflated self-regard and a preoccupation with status and power—is a critical yet overlooked driver of leadership opposition to virtual work. By constraining the rich, face-to-face interactions through which narcissistic leaders typically exercise control and command admiration, remote work threatens their fundamental desires for power and status. Integrating personality research with media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), Shandell and colleagues explain why narcissistic leaders prefer in-person environments where they can more easily assert authority and capture attention.

This article explores the implications of their findings for organizational practice, examining how narcissistic leadership shapes remote work policies and what organizations can do to mitigate the negative consequences of personality-driven resistance.

The Remote Work Landscape: A Post-Pandemic Reality

Defining Remote Work in the Contemporary Context

Remote work encompasses arrangements in which employees perform their duties from locations outside traditional office settings—whether working from home full-time, splitting time between home and office in hybrid configurations, or working from third spaces such as co-working facilities. The defining feature is physical distance from the employer's designated workplace and from colleagues.

Flexible work arrangements existed long before the pandemic, but adoption remained limited. For decades, only a small fraction of organizations offered remote work options, with leaders preferring to maintain the office-centric status quo. The pandemic disrupted this equilibrium dramatically, forcing widespread experimentation with virtual work. What began as a temporary necessity has evolved into a permanent feature of many organizational landscapes, though implementation varies widely across industries and companies.

State of Practice: Prevalence, Drivers, and Distribution

Remote work remains common but uneven in its distribution. Approximately one-quarter of paid work hours in the United States occur remotely as of 2024-2025, representing a substantial shift from pre-pandemic norms when fewer than 5 percent of employees worked from home regularly. However, this aggregate figure masks considerable variation.

Several factors shape remote work adoption:

Industry characteristics: Knowledge-intensive sectors such as technology, finance, and professional services have embraced remote work more readily than industries dependent on frontline workers (healthcare, retail, manufacturing, hospitality). The nature of work—whether it requires physical presence—creates structural constraints on flexibility.
Organizational size and resources: Larger organizations with greater financial and technological resources have generally been better positioned to support distributed work arrangements. However, size also correlates with more bureaucratic decision-making processes that can slow adaptation.
Generational and leadership factors: Younger leaders and those in younger firms demonstrate greater willingness to allow remote work, suggesting that generational attitudes and organizational culture influence flexibility policies.
Employee preferences and bargaining power: The pandemic shifted power dynamics temporarily, as employees gained leverage to demand flexibility. In tight labor markets, organizations offering remote options enjoyed recruitment and retention advantages. However, as economic conditions fluctuate, the balance of power shifts, and some organizations have pulled back on flexibility commitments.

The uneven adoption of remote work reflects both structural realities and discretionary choices. While some industries face genuine operational constraints, in many cases, the decision to mandate return-to-office represents a policy choice shaped by leadership preferences—preferences that may be rooted more in personality than productivity concerns.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Remote Work Decisions

Organizational Performance Impacts

The relationship between remote work and organizational outcomes is more nuanced than conventional wisdom suggests. Early concerns about productivity losses have proven largely unfounded. Numerous studies find that well-implemented hybrid and remote arrangements maintain or even improve performance. For example, experimental research has shown that hybrid working arrangements improve employee retention without damaging performance, while other evidence suggests that productivity remains stable or increases when employees work remotely.

However, the costs of rigid return-to-office mandates are becoming clear:

Talent attrition: Return-to-office mandates disproportionately drive turnover among senior, high-performing, and skilled employees—precisely those most difficult to replace. Research examining S&P 500 companies found that mandates increased quit rates particularly among top performers who had alternative employment options.
Diversity implications: Remote work expanded access to opportunities for employees who faced barriers to onsite work—including working parents, individuals with disabilities, and those living far from major employment centers. Mandating return-to-office can reverse these gains, narrowing the talent pool and reducing workforce diversity.
Recruitment challenges: In competitive labor markets, organizations offering flexibility gain advantages in attracting talent. As remote work has become normalized, many job seekers now expect it as a baseline offering. Organizations that resist flexibility risk being perceived as out of touch.

Despite these costs, many leaders remain convinced that in-person work is superior—a conviction that may reflect psychological needs more than empirical evidence.

Employee Wellbeing and Stakeholder Impacts

For individual employees, remote work arrangements offer significant benefits:

Work-life balance: Eliminating commutes saves hours daily, allowing employees to spend more time with family, pursue personal interests, or simply rest. Employees consistently report higher satisfaction with flexible arrangements.
Autonomy and control: Remote work grants employees greater discretion over when and how they complete tasks, contributing to feelings of empowerment and reduced micromanagement stress.
Health and safety: Beyond pandemic-specific concerns, remote work reduces exposure to illness, workplace injuries, and commuting accidents.

Conversely, rigid return-to-office mandates impose costs on employees:

Financial burden: Commuting expenses (transportation, parking, professional attire, meals) accumulate significantly over time. For some employees, these costs represent substantial portions of take-home pay.
Time poverty: Long commutes consume time that could be spent on caregiving, education, or leisure—time that is particularly scarce for working parents and those with eldercare responsibilities.
Stress and burnout: Being forced back to the office against one's preferences, particularly when performance has not suffered, breeds resentment and disengagement. Employees may perceive mandates as signals of distrust or control, damaging psychological contracts.

The evidence suggests that in many cases, resistance to remote work serves leader preferences at the expense of employee wellbeing and organizational outcomes. Understanding the psychological forces driving this resistance is therefore crucial.

Evidence-Based Understanding of Leadership Opposition

Table 1: Corporate Leadership Responses to Remote Work Policies

Company	Key Leader	Remote Work Policy/Mandate	Official Stated Rationale	Psychological/Motivation Factor (Inferred)	Employee Perception or Outcome
Amazon	Andy Jassy	Return-to-office five days per week	Strengthening culture and innovation	Power motivation; reassertion of top-down control and physical dominance	Interpreted as a power play; significant attrition among senior engineers
JPMorgan Chase	Jamie Dimon	Vocal advocate for return-to-office	Fostering mentorship, creativity, and corporate culture	Status motivation; need to command a room physically and observe employee deference	Employees perceived arguments as centered on social dynamics and status hierarchies
Goldman Sachs	David Solomon	Aggressive return-to-office (calling remote work an 'aberration')	Preserving firm prestige and correcting workplace deviations	Status motivation; desire to maintain elite status, dominance, and traditional hierarchies	Employees felt the policy was about preserving image and exclusivity rather than business needs
Wells Fargo	Charles Scharf	Mandated return to offices	Collaboration and mentorship	Power motivation; assertion of managerial control and narcissistic supply through monitoring	Employees felt distrusted and micromanaged; significant attrition
Salesforce	Marc Benioff	Shifted from remote-friendly to emphasizing onsite work	Maintaining "Ohana" culture (family-like environment)	Status motivation; need for charismatic displays and immediate feedback loops/admiration	Tensions around performance management and culture
Cisco Systems	Chuck Robbins	Hybrid flexibility (with resistance from middle management)	Addressing the loss of management presence	Power motivation; anxiety about diminished control and inability to monitor teams	Internal resistance from middle managers feeling unable to direct teams effectively
Microsoft	Satya Nadella	Hybrid workplace model	Balancing flexibility with intentional collaboration	Inferred as low narcissism; high empathy and listening moderation	Reduced perception of arbitrary or ego-driven decisions due to feedback mechanisms
Shopify	Tobi Lütke	Permanent shift to remote work ("office centricity is over")	Talent is distributed globally; innovation advantage	Reframing status through results rather than physical presence/control	Avoided control-and-status framing; positioned as a competitive advantage
Dropbox	Not in source	Virtual First model (offices as collaboration spaces)	Default to remote to empower distributed teams	Outcome-based accountability over physical surveillance	Maintained high performance and reduced resistance
Atlassian	Not in source	Team Anywhere policy	Data-driven decisions based on pilot testing and consultation	Distributed power through inclusive policy design	High buy-in across leadership levels and verified employee satisfaction
GitLab	Not in source	All-remote company since founding	Flexibility embedded into organizational DNA	Systemic resistance to individual narcissistic control through transparent documentation	Flexibility is a defining feature of identity; high consistency
Patagonia	Not in source	High flexibility culture	Supporting personal and professional goals/wellbeing	Humble and inclusive leadership; low status-driven resistance	Culture of trust and reduced appeal for status markers
Basecamp	Not in source	Long-term remote work	Transparent decision-making and open critique	Reduction of hidden ego needs through transparency	Built trust with employees and avoided arbitrary mandates

The Role of Narcissistic Personality in Leadership Decisions

To understand why some leaders resist remote work despite evidence of its benefits, we must examine personality—specifically, narcissism. Narcissism exists on a continuum; leaders higher on this dimension display greater tendencies toward inflated self-regard, entitlement to admiration, and preoccupation with power and status.

Narcissistic leaders are driven by what scholars call the extended agency model—a self-regulatory system devoted to enhancing and protecting self-esteem (Campbell & Foster, 2007). To maintain their sense of superiority, narcissists engage in both intrapsychic strategies (self-serving fantasies) and interpersonal tactics (self-promotion, dominance displays). Their overriding desire to "get ahead" often comes at the expense of "getting along," leading them to use and exploit others when doing so serves their ego needs (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Chatterjee & Pollock, 2017).

Shandell et al. (2026) argue that remote work poses a unique threat to narcissistic leaders because it constrains their access to what psychoanalytic theory terms "narcissistic supply"—the attention and affirmation they crave. According to media richness theory, communication channels vary in the quality and quantity of information they convey (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Face-to-face interaction is the richest medium, allowing for multiple verbal, nonverbal, and paraverbal cues that are immediately decoded and reciprocated. Virtual interaction, by contrast, is leaner—more equivocal, delayed, and constrained.

For narcissistic leaders, the leanness of virtual communication is problematic. It becomes more difficult to:

Command immediate attention and dominate conversations
Read and bask in subordinates' admiration through facial expressions and body language
Assert physical presence and authority
Receive instant gratification from displays of deference

These constraints threaten the core motivations that drive narcissistic behavior: power and status.

Power Motivation: The Drive for Control

Power motivation reflects the desire for control and authority over others. Narcissistic leaders exhibit heightened power motivation, expressed both psychologically (preoccupation with power) and behaviorally (actively seeking positions of authority and using tactics to maintain control) (Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Zeigler-Hill & Dehaghi, 2023).

In their Study 1, Shandell et al. (2026) analyzed 259 Fortune 500 CEOs, using unobtrusive measures of narcissism (photo size in annual reports, signature size, and relative compensation) to predict resistance to remote work in public statements during the early COVID-19 pandemic. They found that narcissistic indicators significantly predicted greater resistance, with this relationship partially explained by proxies for power and status motivations—particularly in industries not dependent on frontline workers who had no choice but to work onsite.

In traditional office settings, narcissistic leaders exercise power through:

Physical dominance displays: Imposing presence, the loudest voice in meetings, intense eye contact
Management by walking around: Spontaneous drop-ins and summonses that assert authority
Real-time control: Immediate access to subordinates for commands and monitoring

Remote work disrupts these tactics. Virtual platforms introduce delays, create uncertainty about whether directives have been received and accepted, and grant employees greater autonomy to manage their own schedules and availability. Employees can turn off cameras, delay responding to messages, or claim technical difficulties—behaviors narcissistic leaders may interpret as insubordinate threats to their authority.

In the early stages of return-to-office debates, Cisco's leadership under Chuck Robbins maintained flexibility, but internal reports suggested some middle managers resisted hybrid arrangements because they felt unable to monitor and direct teams effectively through virtual channels. The concern centered on loss of "management presence," reflecting anxieties about diminished control rather than productivity data.

When Wells Fargo CEO Charles Scharf mandated employees return to offices, internal communications emphasized the importance of "collaboration" and "mentorship," but many employees perceived the mandate as an assertion of managerial control. The bank had invested heavily in remote work technology during the pandemic, making technological barriers an unconvincing explanation. Employees who left cited feeling distrusted and micromanaged.

Under Andy Jassy's leadership, Amazon issued one of the more stringent return-to-office mandates, requiring employees to work onsite five days per week. Despite evidence that remote work had not harmed performance and had even improved some teams' output, leadership insisted on full-time office presence. The company's official rationale emphasized culture and innovation, but employees widely interpreted the mandate as a power play—a reassertion of top-down control after a period when employees had enjoyed greater autonomy. The policy contributed to significant attrition, particularly among senior engineers who had alternative employment options.

These examples illustrate how concerns about control—framed as legitimate business needs—may reflect underlying power motivations. Narcissistic leaders, facing constraints on their authority in virtual settings, resist remote work to restore their preferred dynamics.

Status Motivation: The Quest for Admiration

Status motivation reflects the desire for admiration, respect, and social standing. For narcissists, status is central to identity. They vigilantly monitor social cues for signals of respect or disrespect and react strongly to perceived slights (Anderson et al., 2015; Cheng et al., 2010).

Shandell et al.'s (2026) Study 2 provided constructive replication and extension of their archival findings through a preregistered three-wave survey with 359 leaders. Leader narcissism predicted resistance to remote work, mediated by both power and status motivations—even after controlling for trust, the Big Five personality traits, and the remaining Dark Triad traits (Machiavellianism and psychopathy). This rigorous design strengthens confidence that narcissism specifically, rather than general personality factors or distrust, drives resistance to virtual work.

In face-to-face settings, narcissistic leaders pursue status through:

Commanding physical presence: Occupying the head of the table, dressing distinctively, curating their appearance
Inspiring speeches and charismatic displays: Using dynamic verbal and nonverbal communication to captivate audiences
Immediate feedback loops: Reading admiration in followers' faces, hearing applause, sensing deference

Remote work complicates these status-seeking strategies. Virtual platforms flatten hierarchies by making everyone a square on a screen of equal size, regardless of rank. Flattering lighting, professional attire, and imposing offices may not translate effectively through low-resolution video feeds. Moreover, virtual communication is more prone to misunderstandings and delays, making it harder to gauge whether one is truly commanding respect or merely being tolerated.

In Study 3, Shandell et al. (2026) employed a preregistered experiment with 546 leaders, manipulating state narcissism (temporarily inducing narcissistic feelings) to test causal relationships. The manipulation evoked resistance to remote work via power motivation but not status motivation, suggesting that the control aspects of in-person work may be particularly salient to narcissistic leaders' resistance, even when narcissistic states are temporarily heightened.

Salesforce initially embraced remote work under Marc Benioff's leadership, positioning itself as a flexible, forward-thinking company. However, as the company navigated tensions around performance management and culture, Benioff's communications increasingly emphasized the importance of onsite "Ohana culture" (the company's term for its family-like environment). For a leader known for charismatic, in-person presentations and stage presence, virtual interactions may have felt less gratifying—less rich in the admiration that fuels status motivation.

CEO Jamie Dimon became one of the most vocal advocates for return-to-office, describing remote work as inferior for fostering mentorship, creativity, and corporate culture. Dimon's leadership style has always been characterized by high visibility—walking trading floors, engaging directly with employees. The inability to command a room physically or to observe employees' deference in person may have contributed to his resistance. While Dimon framed his position in terms of organizational needs, employees noted that his arguments often centered on intangibles like "energy" and "culture"—concepts difficult to quantify but deeply tied to social dynamics and status hierarchies.

Goldman Sachs, under CEO David Solomon, took an early and aggressive stance against remote work, calling it an "aberration" to be corrected as soon as possible. Solomon's leadership brand is built on elite status and prestige—embodying the culture of Wall Street dominance. Virtual work, which democratizes access and flattens status signals, posed a threat to this identity. Employees who resisted the return-to-office mandate reported feeling that the policy was less about business needs and more about preserving traditional hierarchies and the firm's image of exclusivity.

Communication Strategies: Managing Ego Needs in Virtual Settings

One reason narcissistic leaders resist remote work is that virtual communication constrains their preferred tactics for maintaining superiority. However, there are evidence-based approaches for managing these dynamics:

Structured communication protocols: Establishing clear norms for virtual meetings—such as turn-taking rules, agenda-driven discussions, and designated facilitators—can reduce opportunities for narcissistic leaders to dominate conversations. These protocols create fairness and reduce the emphasis on who has the loudest voice or most imposing presence.
Asynchronous collaboration tools: Shifting more work to asynchronous platforms (shared documents, project management tools) reduces the emphasis on real-time, face-to-face charisma. Ideas and contributions are judged on merit rather than delivery, which can benefit both employees and organizations by diversifying input.
Transparency in decision-making: When decisions about remote work policies are made collaboratively and transparently—rather than unilaterally by senior leaders—resistance may decrease. Involving diverse stakeholders in policy design can surface concerns about control and status while channeling them into productive discussions about organizational needs.

Under Satya Nadella, Microsoft embraced a "hybrid workplace" model that balanced flexibility with intentional in-person collaboration. Nadella's leadership style emphasizes empathy and listening—traits that moderate narcissistic tendencies. The company implemented structured feedback mechanisms to ensure employees' voices shaped policy, reducing perceptions that return-to-office decisions were arbitrary or ego-driven.

Trust and Transparency: Addressing Perceived Threats

A commonly cited reason for return-to-office mandates is lack of trust in employees to work effectively without direct oversight. While trust deficits are real, they may be symptoms rather than root causes. Narcissistic leaders' distrust of remote work may stem from anxiety that their own importance will be diminished if they are not physically present to exert control and command attention.

Approaches to address trust concerns:

Performance-based accountability: Shifting from activity-based monitoring (hours in office, visible busyness) to outcomes-based assessment reduces the emphasis on surveillance. Clear goals, regular check-ins, and transparent metrics allow leaders to evaluate performance without requiring constant physical presence.
Building psychological safety: When employees feel safe to communicate openly, they are more likely to proactively share progress and challenges. Leaders who create environments of psychological safety reduce the perceived need for control while increasing trust.
Leadership development on remote management: Many leaders resist remote work because they lack confidence in managing distributed teams effectively. Training programs focused on virtual leadership skills—setting clear expectations, using technology effectively, maintaining team cohesion—can build leaders' self-efficacy and reduce resistance rooted in insecurity.

Dropbox adopted a "Virtual First" model, treating remote work as the default and offices as collaboration spaces. To address trust concerns, the company invested heavily in asynchronous communication tools, clear goal-setting frameworks, and leadership training on managing remote teams. By empowering managers with skills and systems, Dropbox reduced resistance and maintained high performance.

Autonomy and Empowerment: Reframing Control

Narcissistic leaders often frame return-to-office mandates as necessary for collaboration or culture, but underlying concerns frequently center on loss of control. Reframing autonomy as a positive rather than a threat can shift this dynamic:

Empowerment as a leadership strength: Effective leaders enable others to succeed independently. Reframing remote work as an opportunity to empower employees—rather than as a loss of control—can appeal to leaders' self-concepts as mentors and developers of talent.
Distributing leadership responsibilities: In remote settings, leadership becomes more distributed. Project leads, team facilitators, and subject-matter experts take on greater visibility and responsibility. For organizations, this can be beneficial, building bench strength and reducing dependence on a single charismatic leader. For narcissistic leaders, however, distributed leadership may feel threatening. Organizations can mitigate this by recognizing and celebrating senior leaders' roles in enabling others' success.
Status through results, not presence: Shifting organizational culture to emphasize results over "face time" can reduce the appeal of requiring physical presence as a status marker. Leaders who deliver outcomes through flexible teams can be celebrated and rewarded, creating positive incentives for embracing remote work.

Shopify's leadership announced a permanent shift to remote work, stating that "office centricity is over." CEO Tobi Lütke framed this decision in terms of results and innovation, emphasizing that talent is distributed globally and that requiring physical presence would limit the company's access to top performers. By positioning remote work as a competitive advantage rather than a concession, Shopify's leadership avoided the control-and-status framing that fuels resistance.

Transparency in Policy-Making: Surfacing Hidden Agendas

One challenge in addressing narcissistic resistance to remote work is that leaders rarely articulate their true motivations openly. Instead, they cite productivity, culture, or collaboration concerns. Transparent policy-making processes can help surface and address underlying ego needs:

Inclusive policy design: Forming committees with diverse representation—including employees at various levels, HR professionals, and external consultants—can ensure that remote work policies reflect a range of perspectives rather than the preferences of a few senior leaders.
Data-driven decision-making: Grounding decisions in performance data, employee surveys, and benchmark research makes it harder for personal biases to dominate. When leaders are required to justify policies with evidence, narcissistic resistance becomes more visible and challengeable.
Pilot programs and experimentation: Rather than issuing blanket mandates, organizations can test flexible arrangements through pilot programs, gathering data on performance, engagement, and collaboration. This approach reduces the stakes for narcissistic leaders who fear losing control, allowing them to save face if pilots succeed.

Atlassian's "Team Anywhere" policy was developed through extensive employee consultation and pilot testing. The company collected data on productivity, collaboration, and satisfaction before finalizing the policy. This evidence-based approach made it difficult for leaders to resist based on unfounded concerns, while the inclusive process ensured buy-in across leadership levels.

Building Long-Term Organizational Adaptability

Cultivating Humble and Inclusive Leadership

Organizations seeking to avoid the pitfalls of narcissistic resistance must invest in leadership development that emphasizes humility, empathy, and inclusive decision-making. Research shows that humble leaders—those who acknowledge limitations, seek feedback, and empower others—create higher-performing teams and more adaptive organizations.

Leadership selection and promotion: Organizations should assess narcissism explicitly when evaluating candidates for leadership roles. While moderate confidence can be adaptive, extreme narcissism often proves costly. Selection processes that emphasize collaboration, emotional intelligence, and servant leadership values can reduce the concentration of narcissistic traits in leadership positions.

360-degree feedback and coaching: Providing leaders with honest feedback about how their resistance to flexibility affects employees can prompt self-reflection. Executive coaching focused on managing ego needs, building empathy, and reframing control as empowerment can help narcissistic leaders develop healthier leadership styles.

Accountability mechanisms: Organizations must hold leaders accountable for decisions that harm retention and performance. When return-to-office mandates lead to attrition or reduced satisfaction, these outcomes should factor into leadership evaluations and compensation.

Patagonia: Patagonia's leadership culture emphasizes environmental and social responsibility, humility, and employee wellbeing. The company's approach to flexibility reflects these values—trusting employees to manage their work in ways that support personal and professional goals. This culture reduces the appeal of status-driven resistance.

Designing Decision-Making Structures That Distribute Power

Concentrating decision-making authority in the hands of a few senior leaders creates opportunities for narcissistic resistance to shape policy. More distributed governance structures can counteract this risk:

Cross-functional policy committees: Rather than allowing senior executives to unilaterally set remote work policies, organizations can establish committees that include representatives from multiple levels and functions. This structure ensures that employee perspectives inform decisions and reduces the influence of any single leader's ego needs.

Employee voice mechanisms: Regular employee surveys, town halls, and feedback channels allow organizations to understand sentiment and needs. When employees have voice and influence, leaders face pressure to justify restrictive policies with evidence rather than personal preference.

Board-level oversight: Boards of directors should scrutinize return-to-office mandates, particularly if they contribute to talent attrition or undermine performance. Boards can hold CEOs accountable for decisions that reflect personal preferences rather than shareholder interests.

Basecamp: Basecamp has long championed remote work and transparent decision-making. The company's founders openly share their thinking about policies, inviting critique and revision. This transparency reduces the likelihood that decisions reflect hidden ego needs and builds trust with employees.

Redefining Organizational Culture Around Flexibility

Rather than treating remote work as a temporary accommodation or a concession to employees, leading organizations are embedding flexibility into their cultural identities. This shift makes resistance more difficult to sustain:

Flexibility as a core value: When flexibility is articulated as a core organizational value—on par with innovation, integrity, or customer focus—it becomes harder for leaders to oppose without appearing out of step with the organization's identity.

Celebrating distributed success: Highlighting examples of teams and projects that succeeded in remote or hybrid settings normalizes flexibility and challenges the assumption that in-person work is superior. Publicly recognizing employees who excel in distributed environments reinforces positive norms.

Long-term commitments: Organizations that make long-term, public commitments to flexibility face reputational costs if they reverse course. These commitments create accountability and reduce the likelihood that short-term resistance from narcissistic leaders will derail policy.

GitLab: GitLab has operated as an all-remote company since its founding, embedding flexibility into its DNA. The company's transparent "handbook" documents remote work practices, making flexibility a defining feature of its identity. This cultural foundation makes resistance from individual leaders less likely to gain traction.

Conclusion: Beyond the Office Altar

The evidence is clear: in many organizations, resistance to remote work is not driven primarily by productivity concerns, technological limitations, or trust deficits. Instead, as Shandell, Elliott, and Grant (2026) demonstrate through converging archival, survey, and experimental methods, it reflects the personality and motivations of leaders—particularly narcissistic leaders whose desires for power and status are threatened by the leaner communication channels of virtual work.

This insight has important implications. First, it challenges the assumption that return-to-office mandates are always rational, evidence-based decisions. When leaders cite culture, collaboration, or innovation as reasons for requiring physical presence, these explanations may obscure self-serving motives. Organizations and employees should scrutinize such rationales, demanding evidence and transparency.

Second, Shandell et al.'s (2026) findings highlight the costs of narcissistic leadership. While narcissism can confer some advantages—confidence, boldness, willingness to take risks (Grijalva et al., 2015)—it also carries liabilities. In the context of remote work, narcissistic resistance undermines organizational adaptability, drives talent attrition (Ding & Ma, 2024), and sacrifices employee wellbeing to serve leaders' egos. Organizations must recognize these costs and take steps to mitigate narcissistic influence on policy.

Third, this research points toward actionable strategies for change. By understanding the psychological dynamics underlying resistance—specifically, that power and status motivations mediate narcissistic leaders' opposition to remote work—organizations can design interventions that address these root causes. Leadership development programs can help narcissistic leaders find alternative sources of status and control that don't depend on physical presence. Transparent policy-making processes can reduce individual leaders' ability to impose preferences unilaterally. Distributed decision-making structures can ensure that multiple perspectives, rather than the ego needs of a few executives, shape workplace flexibility policies.

Fourth, organizations should incorporate personality assessment into leadership selection and development. Given the documented relationship between narcissism and resistance to beneficial organizational changes (Oreg, 2006; Shandell et al., 2026), screening for extreme narcissism when evaluating candidates for senior roles may prevent costly policy decisions driven by personal needs rather than organizational interests. For leaders already in place, coaching and 360-degree feedback can surface blind spots related to control and status needs, creating opportunities for behavioral change.

Finally, this analysis underscores that the future of work is not merely a logistical or technological question—it is deeply human and political. Decisions about where and how work happens reflect power dynamics, identity, and values. As organizations navigate this terrain, they must grapple with uncomfortable truths about who holds power, whose needs are prioritized, and what kind of culture they aspire to build.

The research by Shandell et al. (2026) provides organizations with a critical lens for understanding why some leaders cling to outdated models of work despite mounting evidence that flexibility benefits both employees and organizations. Their integration of narcissism theory with media richness theory offers a coherent explanation: narcissistic leaders resist remote work because virtual communication limits their ability to exercise power and command status in the ways they prefer.

The office need not be an altar at which employees worship their leaders. The future of work can be more flexible, inclusive, and humane—but only if organizations are willing to confront and constrain the narcissistic resistance that stands in the way. Armed with the insights from this emerging research on leadership personality and remote work, organizations have both the understanding and the tools to make better decisions about workplace flexibility—decisions that serve organizational performance and employee wellbeing rather than leaders' egos.

Research Infographic

The Ego Behind RTO Slide Deck

References

Acharya, A. G., & Pollock, T. G. (2013). Shoot for the stars? Predicting the recruitment of prestigious directors at newly public firms. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1396–1419.
Acharya, A. G., & Pollock, T. G. (2021). Too many peas in a pod? How overlaps in directors' local and global status characteristics influence board turnover in newly public firms. Academy of Management Journal, 64(5), 1472–1496.
Aksoy, C. G., Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., Davis, S. J., Dolls, M., & Zarate, P. (2025). The global persistence of work from home. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper No. 2025-65.
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601.
Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105–131.
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(Special Issue), 383–400.
Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2023). The evolution of work from home. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 37(4), 23–49.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Narcissism as addiction to esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 206–210.
Bloom, N., Han, R., & Liang, J. (2024). Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance. Nature, 630, 920–925.
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies. In C. Sedikides & S. J. Spencer (Eds.), The self (pp. 115–138). Psychology Press.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It's all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351–386.
Chatterjee, A., & Pollock, T. G. (2017). Master of puppets: How narcissistic CEOs construct their professional worlds. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 703–725.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334–347.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
Ding, Y., & Ma, M. (2024). Return-to-office mandates. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. (2006). Helping one's way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1123–1137.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541.
Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1–47.
Hsu, D. H., & Tambe, P. B. (2025). Remote work and job applicant diversity: Evidence from technology startups. Management Science, 71(1), 595–614.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41.
Leonardi, P. M., Parker, S. H., & Shen, R. (2024). How remote work changes the world of work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 193–219.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–91.
Parker, S. K., Knight, C., & Keller, A. (2020). Remote managers are having trust issues. Harvard Business Review.
Sedikides, C., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Narcissistic force meets systemic resistance: The energy clash model. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(3), 400–421.
Shandell, M. S., Elliott, C. E., & Grant, A. M. (2026). Worship me at the office altar: Why narcissistic leaders resist remote work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 195, 104496.
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Dehaghi, A. M. B. (2023). Narcissism and psychological needs for social status, power, and belonging. Personality and Individual Differences, 210, Article 112231.

Note: This article synthesizes and extends the research findings from Shandell, Elliott, and Grant (2026). The organizational examples are illustrative, drawn from publicly available information about return-to-office policies and leadership communications. While specific quotes and internal details are anonymized or generalized, the patterns described reflect documented trends in organizational responses to remote work.

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Research Officer (Nexus Institute for Work and AI); Associate Dean and Director of HR Academic Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). The Hidden Motives Behind Return-to-Office Mandates: How Narcissistic Leadership Drives Remote Work Resistance. Human Capital Leadership Review, 35(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.35.3.5