A new study is adding fuel to a debate that has simmered since 2021: why do some executives insist on full-time office attendance even when their own data doesn't support it? The answer, according to fresh research from a well-known organizational psychologist, may have less to do with output and more to do with the person giving the order.
The research examined leadership personality traits alongside return-to-office (RTO) policies across a range of companies. It found that executives who scored higher on narcissism measures were more likely to demand full-time in-office attendance, regardless of whether their teams' performance data justified it. The correlation held even when researchers controlled for industry, company size, and prior productivity trends.
This isn't the first research to question the productivity rationale behind RTO mandates. Multiple studies over the past two years — including internal reviews at companies that enforced strict return policies — have found little measurable output difference between remote, hybrid, and in-office teams. What's new here is the psychological angle: rather than asking whether RTO works, the research asks why leaders push it even when it doesn't.
The pattern the study describes fits a recognizable dynamic. Visibility and control are core drivers of narcissistic leadership behavior. An empty office undermines a leader's sense of authority and status in a very literal, visible way. Mandating attendance restores that visual hierarchy, whether or not it changes what actually gets done.
This matters because return-to-office mandates have become one of the more visible corporate trends of the past three years. Large employers including several major banks, tech firms, and retailers have issued full-time or near-full-time attendance requirements since 2022, often citing collaboration or culture rather than hard performance metrics. Employee surveys tracking these rollouts have consistently found that many workers view the stated reasons as a cover for something else — usually a desire for oversight or a signal to shareholders that leadership is decisive.
The pattern after these mandates tends to be fairly consistent: a wave of attrition among higher performers who have other options, quieter compliance from those who don't, and a slow re-hiring cycle to backfill roles at often higher cost. Few companies have publicly reversed a full RTO mandate once announced, even when attrition data suggested it was hurting them, which suggests these decisions are sticky once made — for reasons that may have little to do with the original justification.
For small businesses, the practical stakes are different but real. Most small companies don't have the leverage to enforce unpopular attendance policies without losing talent to competitors offering flexibility, and many can't absorb the cost of replacing skilled staff who leave over the issue. A rigid in-office mandate imposed without a clear operational reason is a more expensive experiment for a 15-person company than a 15,000-person one.
The research offers small business owners a useful diagnostic question before setting any workplace policy: is this decision backed by a specific, measurable problem — missed deadlines, communication breakdowns, client complaints — or is it backed by a feeling that things look better when everyone is visibly present? Owners who can point to the former have a policy. Owners relying on the latter may want to examine their own motives before rolling out a mandate that could cost them their best people.
Watch for how larger employers respond to their own attrition data in the coming months, particularly whether any high-profile companies quietly loosen RTO rules after losing key staff. Also worth tracking: whether more organizational psychology research starts separating stated business rationale from measurable outcomes, a distinction that's been largely absent from the RTO debate so far.
The bottom line: before adopting or tightening an office attendance policy, small business owners should be able to name the specific problem it solves — because the data increasingly suggests that for many leaders, the real reason has nothing to do with productivity at all.