The illusion of authority: why return-to-office mandates fail

When leaders neglect the social and psychological contracts between employer and employee, forget that people choose to be governed, or interpret the role of leader as the shepherd of compliant but essentially stupid sheep, Chester Barnard would warn that events are likely to go badly.

First published in the Mandarin.

The NSW government’s service-wide ‘workplace presence’ policy may have seemed like a good idea at the time. It wasn’t.

The Premier might have believed he was in good company when the idea was presented. Globally, notable leaders in the tech and finance sectors were contemplating and behaving similarly. What could go wrong if Elon Musk believed getting people back to the office was a brilliant idea?

Senator Jane Hume recently cited research indicating that productivity decreases when people work from home. However, the study showed quite the opposite.

Most workplace research indicates that, to quote the title of the Stanford study published in the journal Nature: ‘Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance’.

Despite evidence that this practice enhances productivity and promotes workforce well-being, the NSW government appears determined to confront the workforce over hybrid working. This is the workforce it relies on to implement policy and deliver services.

Reality is what goes on in people’s heads

There are two contrasting viewpoints in the conflict around hybrid work.

The first perspective, held by some politicians and senior executives, portrays hybrid work primarily as individuals lounging in their pyjamas at noon and being unproductive. The evidence supporting this perception is limited, anecdotal, and heavily influenced by the narrow views of leaders who are oblivious to changes in the post-pandemic work landscape and resistant to research findings. These leaders long for a return to the pre-pandemic status quo.

The second group comprises employees who have achieved a better work-life balance and are delivering the benefits of hybrid working for the public service and government.

While some individuals may be taking advantage of the system, assuming that those same individuals did not exploit the system when they worked in the office is to be wilfully naïve. This is precisely why performance management is essential regardless of work location.

Overall, public servants working from home act responsibly and deliver productivity, just as they did when working full-time in an office.

The workforce has experienced the reality of hybrid work, while some leaders wanting to return to ‘normal’ are in denial.

Confusing authority and power

Chester Barnard, the author of The Functions of the Executive (1938), argues that the NSW government’s approach to addressing the issue reflects a classic confusion between authority and power.

Barnard proposed the ‘acceptance theory of authority,’ which contends that authority isn’t inherent to a position (e.g., NSW Premier) but relies on the workforce’s acceptance and recognition of it (e.g., Transport for NSW employees).

Barnard took a pragmatic approach to authority and power.

Exercising effective authority in organisations depends on cooperation between executives and employees. An organisation operates most efficiently when authority is used to align with both individual and collective interests.

Essentially, leadership is a social contract between leaders and their followers.

Barnard’s core argument about authority emphasises that unfair or poorly conceived policies diminish respect for leadership. When leaders fail to recognise that authority depends on the consent of the workforce, resistance to their policies grows.

If leaders use force to achieve their goals, it creates a false sense of leadership authority, ultimately eroding their real authority and establishing a power structure based on coercion.

Barnard's distinction between acting with authority and exercising power is evident in the escalating conflict between the NSW government and Transport for NSW employees over the ‘workplace presence’ policy.

Leaders expand the ‘zone of indifference’

We all have what Barnard called a ‘zone of indifference’. We accept various management requests without question. If the request falls within our zone of indifference, we comply.

People may resist authority when a request falls outside this zone. In these cases, compliance comes through persuasion or the application of additional incentives.

Leaders who read this might think Barnard’s theory overlooks the significance of leadership, implying that leaders should simply follow the people's desires.

However, Barnard suggests that authority is not synonymous with coercion; instead, it involves creating an environment that encourages voluntary compliance as individuals recognise the intrinsic value of their ongoing commitment.

There has been little communication from government and business leaders encouraging employees to return to the office that explains why returning to the office is reasonable and aligns with their interests.

Indeed, the reasons for returning to the office often focus on the benefits to office block and coffee shop owners. There is also an accompanying argument that when public servants are paddocked together, their collective presence magically ‘builds strong public institutions’.

Most leaders seeking a return to the office seem intent on stating an opinion as fact and proceeding from there. In contrast, Barnard believes a leader's primary responsibility is to expand the zone of indifference by fostering trust, ensuring fairness, and aligning individual and organisational goals.

Leaders achieve this by balancing the formal authority from their positions with the informal authority gained through influence, expertise, and interpersonal relationships. They build credibility and promote cooperation.

Importantly, leaders understand that authority, which is rooted in a social contract, is dynamic rather than fixed. Effective leaders adjust their strategies to evolving circumstances, employee expectations, and external pressures.

Failing to adapt can undermine their legitimacy and heighten the chances of resistance from the workforce.

Move on

Blindly prosecuting ‘back-to-the-office’ arguments is tedious and unnecessary.

It highlights a troubling lack of imagination among some politicians, senior government officials, and business leaders. They appear unable to comprehend that the pandemic resulted in a profound transformation in the workplace and that there is no turning back.

Although it is possible to require employees to return to the office, doing so will reduce their commitment, engagement, and productivity.

The reason is simple: employees in any organisation, regardless of size, determine the amount of time, effort, skill, and creativity they contribute to their employers. These qualities cannot be extracted. They can only be given.

In 1994, Canadian sociologist Dennis Wrong emphasised the importance of human relationships within organisations by stating, ‘Groups, institutions, and societies are nothing but concentrations of recurrent interactions among individuals'.

When leaders neglect the social and psychological contracts between employer and employee, forget that people choose to be governed, or interpret the role of leader as the shepherd of compliant but essentially stupid sheep, Chester Barnard would warn that events are likely to go badly.