Why narcissistic leaders oppose remote work

When companies restrict remote work, discussions typically focus on collaboration, culture and performance. Yet personal motives may matter alongside operational requirements. Research at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania examines how narcissistic personality traits relate to leaders’ attitudes towards remote work.

Haufe reported on the study on 7 October 2026. Conducted by Marissa Shandell, Courtney Elliott and Adam Grant, it found that stronger narcissistic traits were associated with greater opposition to remote work. Power and status motives may partly explain the relationship. For HR, that is a reason to make workplace decisions transparent – not to diagnose managers from a distance.

When office presence also protects power and status

The researchers distinguish two motives. Power striving concerns a desire for control and authority over others. Status striving concerns recognition, respect and admiration.

Face-to-face interaction can give leaders immediate feedback, attention and opportunities to exert influence. Distributed work changes that dynamic. The findings suggest that leaders with stronger narcissistic traits may be more resistant to this change. This is one possible explanation for opposition to flexible work locations, not an explanation for every office-presence decision.

Three studies: What was actually measured?

1. Public statements by 259 CEOs

The first study examined 259 CEOs of US Fortune 500 companies during the pandemic. Narcissism was assessed indirectly through the prominence of CEO photographs in annual reports, signature size and compensation relative to the second-highest-paid executive. Independent raters assessed public statements about remote and hybrid work.

Higher scores on these indicators were associated with greater resistance to remote work, including after accounting for factors such as age, gender, company size and industry. Important limitations remain: the indicators are indirect, the statements are public and the pandemic was an unusual context. This was neither a clinical diagnosis nor a direct measurement of companies’ actual remote-work policies.

2. A survey of 359 leaders

A second study involved 359 US leaders across different organisational levels and industries. The researchers used the narcissism subscale of the Short Dark Triad Scale and asked about power and status motives and attitudes towards remote work.

Again, stronger narcissistic traits were associated with greater opposition to remote work. Power and status motives were also related to that opposition. A survey establishes associations; by itself, it does not demonstrate causation.

3. An experiment involving 546 leaders

In the experiment, some of 546 leaders read a short text highlighting potential benefits of narcissistic leadership; the control group did not receive it. The first group subsequently showed stronger power striving and greater opposition to remote work. The effects were small. There was no significant difference in status striving.

This adds evidence about a possible mechanism. However, a temporarily induced mindset is not the same as a stable personality trait. The experiment cannot support blanket conclusions about individual managers.

Not every office requirement signals narcissism

The research concerns grandiose narcissism as a personality trait, not narcissistic personality disorder. Labelling someone a narcissist because they request office attendance would misrepresent the findings.

Tasks, customer contact, safety, onboarding and collaboration can provide sound operational reasons for working on site. The important questions are whether a requirement fits the work and whether its rationale is clear. Findings from US samples also do not automatically establish what happens in every German organisation.

What HR can take from this for healthy hybrid work

The following steps are our practical interpretation, not interventions proven effective by this experiment:

• Develop policies together: HR, leaders and teams can bring operational requirements and different perspectives into the discussion, rather than letting an individual manager’s preferences determine the rules.
• Define the purpose of office time: Which tasks benefit from shared on-site time? Onboarding, workshops and focused individual work may have different requirements.
• Discuss outcomes rather than visibility: Clear goals and regular feedback make performance easier to understand than attendance alone.
• Review the arrangements: Feedback on collaboration, workload and work quality should inform policy improvements.
• Create healthy conditions in both locations: Flexible work also needs suitable equipment and organisation, not simply permission to work from home.

Our free Hybrid Work Policy Generator offers a starting point for drafting a shared policy. Equipment and working conditions then deserve as much attention as the number of office days.

Conclusion: Improve decisions instead of labelling people

The Wharton research broadens the discussion of remote work: power and status motives may play a part alongside operational considerations. That does not justify a general suspicion of leaders. It does provide a good argument for transparent, jointly developed and reviewable hybrid-work rules.

Sources and further reading

• Haufe, 7 October 2026: Narcissism: Why some leaders reject remote work (German). The basis for this independently written article and its account of the three studies.
• Shandell, M. S., Elliott, C. E. and Grant, A. M. (2026): Worship me at the office altar: Why narcissistic leaders resist remote work, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, volume 195. Bibliographic record and abstract of the original paper.