Even if one were to grant the conclusion — leaders resist remote work to preserve their "power and status" — to what extent is the magnitude and success of a company (or for that matter, any serious enterprise) a direct function of its leader's ability to:
- Exercise authority / power
- Maintain status within the hierarchy
As in - who wants to work for a leader who is neither powerful nor high-status within their own company? Who consciously chooses a leader who is neither effective in getting people to do the right things, nor effective in commanding a (somewhat faith-based) trust in their long-term vision?
The study feels extremely leading in its idea of what a "good" leader would look like (presumably "hands off," leaves everyone alone such that good outcomes simple "emerge", etc) -- while treating this bent as obvious truth.
I say this as someone who spent the last 6 years straight working remotely (also having been successful in contributing impact).
> who wants to work for a leader who is neither powerful nor high-status within their own company?
Me. In my limited experience, the more leaders are involved, the less likely the project is to be successful. The ideal situation is having leadership that is able to set a decent strategy, and then get out of the way of their subordinates and let them execute. Bad leadership micromanages and inserts themselves in the way of execution.
The status and “power” involved in setting strategy isn’t nearly as significant as the amount involved in micromanagement.
Good managers are there to clear obstacles for good workers to do their best work. Unfortunately, not all workers are on board/motivated enough to do their best. It's less of an issue in software, because essentially everyone is well-compensated and comfortable.
There are other reasons that an employee may comply with a leader's instructions than some highly subjective and deeply irrational notion of social status. For example, they might comply because they're paid to, or because they want company to succeed (for stocks, or for other reasons). Some performance of authority isn't a perquisite for humans choosing to organize.
Sure, but there are longer shots than others, where money alone won't make the difference and when conviction in mission is directly related to conviction in founders/leaders.
"subjective and deeply irrational" aren't the exception for how humans organize
- Exercise authority / power
- Maintain status within the hierarchy
As in - who wants to work for a leader who is neither powerful nor high-status within their own company? Who consciously chooses a leader who is neither effective in getting people to do the right things, nor effective in commanding a (somewhat faith-based) trust in their long-term vision?
The study feels extremely leading in its idea of what a "good" leader would look like (presumably "hands off," leaves everyone alone such that good outcomes simple "emerge", etc) -- while treating this bent as obvious truth.
I say this as someone who spent the last 6 years straight working remotely (also having been successful in contributing impact).