Is hybrid work a threat to leadership?

Last week, my friend and colleague Wouter de Valk drew my attention to an op-ed by Adam Grant—an organizational psychologist at the Wharton School and one of today’s best-known management thinkers—in The New York Times. Grant’s argument was as incisive as it was provocative: many managers want employees back in the office because working from home threatens their need for power, status, and control.

Grant’s analysis is thought-provoking. Power, status, and control undoubtedly play a role. Yet as I read, I couldn’t help but feel that these factors might not be the cause, but rather a reaction to a deeper issue—one that many more managers likely recognize than they would care to admit:

What value does my leadership actually add anymore?

Photo by Daniel Höhe on Unsplash

For years, leadership and physical presence were closely intertwined. Work was assigned at conference tables, problems were solved in the hallway, and progress was monitored because people were literally visible. When hybrid work emerged, it suddenly became clear that many teams could function surprisingly well without their manager being constantly nearby.

What value does my leadership really add if employees are achieving results even without my constant presence?

Not everything went perfectly, but much more than expected turned out to be possible even when working remotely.

This created an uncomfortable reality for many managers. Because as soon as employees can plan independently, collaborate digitally, solve problems, and achieve results without their manager’s constant presence, the question naturally arises: what exactly is the unique contribution of leadership anymore?

From that perspective, it’s not surprising that some managers struggle with hybrid work. The fact that managers with narcissistic traits are more likely to resist remote work is therefore a plausible explanation for part of that resistance. At the same time, these primarily American research findings cannot be directly applied to Europe, and here too, correlation does not imply causation. “Perhaps this is why Grant’s findings explain not so much why some leaders are implementing return-to-office policies, but rather why some leaders react more strongly to a tension that is felt much more widely.”

Because hybrid work confronts managers with an uncomfortable possibility: that some of what was once considered leadership may not have been leadership at all. When employees can plan, collaborate, and achieve results independently without their manager’s constant presence, the distinction between leading and supervising becomes blurred. It then becomes clear that presence is not the same as added value, that control is not synonymous with leadership, and that the true contribution of leaders lies elsewhere: in providing direction, developing people, and building trust.en.

Being present is not the same as adding value. Control is not synonymous with leadership.

Perhaps that is ultimately the most interesting lesson from Grant’s article. Not that working from home poses a threat to leaders’ power, but that hybrid work reveals where management and leadership actually add value.

For years, many aspects of leadership could hide behind physical presence, hierarchy, and supervision. Now that these once-self-evident factors have become less self-evident, a more fundamental question arises:

Where does leadership really make a difference?

And the answer to that question will likely shape the future of leadership more than the question of where employees do their work.

Reference

• Adam Grant, Marissa Shandell & Courtney Elliott (2026). The Secret Reason Bosses Want Everyone Back in the Office, Every Day of the Week, The New York Times.

  https://tinyurl.com/2p7k9tyw