The ‘Pendulum Problem’ at Work

Not long ago, “command-and-control leadership” was declared dead. The rise of remote work during the pandemic — along with the Great Resignation and trends such as #quietquitting — led employers to show a greater sense of care in meeting employees’ needs. But that obituary was premature.   

In today’s climate of AI disruption, a tight labor market, and economic uncertainty, the old rigid leadership style is making a comeback. Business results have taken center stage, often at the expense of well-being, purpose, belonging, and inclusion, values once deemed essential to success.  

Return-to-office mandates and blunt “Get back to the office or find another employer” messages have replaced the empathetic, employee-centric tone that briefly flourished. CEOs who once kept their discomfort to themselves about accommodating employees’ needs now feel emboldened to issue “It’s-called-work-for-a-reason” memos, which often become public.   

The pendulum has swung hard and fast. But why does it always swing to extremes? Why can’t it land somewhere in the middle, where both business outcomes and employee preferences can coexist? A balanced approach — one that aligns organizational goals with flexibility and well-being — can drive better results.   

Fear May Motivate, But It’s Not Sustainable   

Command-and-control leadership may deliver short-term gains, but it often leaves long-term damage in its wake: low morale, high turnover, and reputational damage. Most of us can instantly recall a favorite boss who inspired us to give more, and a bad boss who drained our energy and made us feel undervalued. The former sparked discretionary effort and the latter stifled it.  

When leaders prioritize results above all, they risk losing the very things that fuel performance: creativity, truth-telling, and discretionary effort. Fear may motivate, but it’s not sustainable — especially not when workers crave flexibility and purpose.  

Companies thrive when they consistently get the best from their people, not just when they demand it. And office “face time” isn’t the metric that matters.  

Two experiences early in my career shaped my views on the illusion of productivity tied to physical presence:   

I once sat between two co-workers with identical roles. One arrived at 6 a.m., read the paper until 8 a.m., then began working. The other arrived at 8 a.m. and worked right away. The early arriver received higher ratings for being seen in the office longer, not for better results.  

A former boss often draped a jacket on his chair and left his computer on to create the illusion of being at work. He wasn’t. But the illusion worked.  

We all have stories like these. Employees can meet attendance requirements and still be unproductive. Employers should focus on outcomes, not just physical presence.