Các nghiên cứu cho thấy sếp có tính “ái kỷ” thường phản đối làm việc tại nhà. Nhưng liệu họ có đúng?

Have you ever wondered why your boss wants you back in the office full–time, rather than allowing hybrid work, where you can combine work from home and in an office? A fascinating study just shed fresh light on this topic.

Research published last month found narcissistic leaders – those with a tendency to be self–centred and entitled – were more likely than others to resist remote work. Why? The study concluded “it interferes with their motivations for power and status”.

Here’s what the latest study found – and how it fits into the broader research on whether employers get better results from making staff return to the office, or allowing some flexibility to work from home.

What prompted the new study?

The recent study was conducted by three Wharton School researchers: PhD candidates Marissa Shandell and Courtney Elliott, and high–profile author and professor in organisational psychology, Adam Grant.

Conducted over six years, the trio undertook three separate studies with more than 1,000 company executives, middle managers and supervisors. These examined the relationship between bosses’ personalities and their views on remote work.

In the first study, the authors analysed 259 Fortune 500 chief executive officers, using established indicators of narcissism from previous research such as:

the prominence of the CEO’s photograph in the annual report

the size of the CEO’s signature

and relative compensation (both cash and non-cash) compared with the second–highest paid executive.

These indicators have been used in previous research as behavioural markers of narcissistic self–focus and entitlement. The researchers then examined public statements by the same CEOs about remote work.

In the second study, the researchers surveyed 359 leaders measuring narcissism using the “short dark triad” scale, alongside other traits and motivations including Machiavellianism, psychopathy, power and status motivation, and trust in employees. They then measured the leaders’ self–reported attitudes toward remote and hybrid arrangements.

The final study was an experiment with 546 leaders. Participants were randomly assigned to either a “narcissism condition” group or a control group, before filling in a survey.

Those in the “narcissism” group were prompted before the survey to read about successful CEOs, described as confident, self–centred visionaries willing to prioritise their own ambitions and instincts over others’ input. Leaders in the narcissism group subsequently expressed greater resistance to remote work.

Across all three studies, narcissism was the only factor that consistently predicted leaders’ objections to remote work.

Summarising their findings for the New York Times, the authors concluded:

the higher the opinions of themselves leaders expressed, the more they coveted power and status — and the more they favoured full–time return–to–office mandates.

International return–to–office trends

Since the pandemic ended, some corporate leaders have pushed harder than others to get staff back to the office.

In 2023, Tesla chief executive Elon Musk criticised “the laptop class” for wanting the right to stay home, when service workers didn’t have the same choices. Last year, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon made an impassioned, expletive-laden speech to staff about getting back in the office full–time.

Around a third of US companies have made it mandatory to return fully to the office. Yet despite those mandates at some US workplaces, official statistics show about 22.6% of US employees still worked remotely at least part–time as of March 2026.

The latest data from Great Britain shows around 28% of working adults were still working under hybrid arrangements in early 2025.

Hybrid work is more common in Australia. Official figures from August 2025 showed 36% of employed Australians usually worked from home.

Many Australian workers have the right to at least request flexible work arrangements.

One Australian state, Victoria, is set to go even further. From September this year, new laws will mean Victorians who can work from home will have the legal right to do so two days a week.

The sweet spot of mixing office and home work

The recent narcissism study provides important new insights into why some leaders resist work from home.

But of course there are many valid reasons for wanting staff in the office. If you’re an employer trying to do the right thing by your business and your employees, here’s what the wider evidence shows.

For those worried about employees not working as hard at home, a randomised controlled trial compared Chinese workers in the office five days a week to a group in the office three days a week – and found no significant difference in productivity. The hybrid worker group reported significantly higher job satisfaction and work life balance, while being 33% less likely to resign.

A 2024 study of top US companies shows that firms enforcing strict return to the office mandates showed no significant changes in financial performance or the value of the companies. They did, however, see significant declines in employees’ job satisfaction.

A 2025 study found 70% of 26,000 workers across Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Americas rated location flexibility as important. It also found work–life balance was the top motivator for employees – ranking above pay for the first time since the survey began in 2003.

A meta-analysis of 108 studies on remote work found beneficial effects across a range of important outcomes, including job satisfaction, organisational commitment, perceived organisational support, supervisor–rated performance, and turnover intentions.

Overall, the evidence suggests a hybrid mix of work–from–home flexibility, with two to three days in the office, is the sweet spot for looking after both employers’ and employees’ needs.

Libby (Elizabeth) Sander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.