Leadership & The Illusion of Control
The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer report reveals a concerning shift in global sentiment; now in its 25th edition, the report indicates that trust has reached its lowest recorded level:
“Sixty-one percent globally have a moderate or high sense of grievance, defined as a belief that government and business make their lives more challenging, serve narrow interests, and disproportionately benefit the wealthy,”
For organisations, this prevailing lack of trust is particularly troubling, arising amidst an era characterised by relentless change, hyper-polarization, economic instability, rapid technological advancement in AI, and significant geopolitical transformations.
Leaders are increasingly expressing a sense of lost control.
The Psychology of Control
The human brain is fundamentally driven by a desire for control, essential for both survival and well-being. A perceived lack of agency can trigger considerable distress; when individuals feel powerless against external circumstances, the brain’s alarm system—especially the amygdala—may induce a “fight, flight, or freeze” response. Chronic activation of this state can lead to persistent stress, anxiety, and even physical health concerns. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for reasoning and emotional regulation, struggles to manage these responses when autonomy feels threatened.
Data from managers underscores this point: many report fatigue, insomnia, ongoing stress, and difficulty focusing. These symptoms suggest a deeper structural problem within current management models, rather than merely motivational shortcomings. Such levels of stress and burnout imply that managerial expectations may be unsustainable, undermining effective leadership and organiational resilience.
Human nature typically responds to diminished control by attempting to reclaim it—volatility drives a desire for stability, uncertainty encourages a search for certainty, complexity prompts a wish for simplicity, and ambiguity fuels demands for clarity. For many leaders, exerting direct control appears to be the fastest means to reestablish order. However, in an environment where trust is critically low, this approach is unlikely to yield positive outcomes. The evolution toward distributed teams and hybrid work environments is often perceived by some leaders less as an adaptation and more as a challenge to traditional authority. This nostalgia for previous workplace norms is evident in calls for Return to Office (RTO) mandates.
Prominent organizations such as Goldman Sachs have publicly advocated for a full-time office-based culture. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy reportedly advised employees to return to the office three days per week or risk reduced career advancement opportunities. Google demands the same. These policies reflect a belief that physical proximity inherently enhances productivity, collaboration, and culture—that observing team members equates to managing their output and commitment.
The Panopticon Paradox: Monitoring the Unmonitorable
RTO policies are not the only manifestations of the illusion of control. Where mandatory office returns are impractical, digital monitoring becomes prevalent. Some organizations rely on:
• Time tracking software: Monitoring idle time, keystrokes, and mouse movements, under the assumption that activity equates to productivity.
• Website and application surveillance: Tracking all websites visited and applications used, flagging non-work-related activity.
• Periodic screenshots and webcam checks: Collecting snapshots of employees’ screens or activating webcams to verify engagement.
• Communication analysis: Reviewing internal chat conversations, collaborative patterns, and platform usage.
Though framed as productivity and security measures, such practices often reflect underlying mistrust—a digital attempt to replicate the oversight once presumed in physical offices.
However, genuine control in today’s VUCA world remains elusive. While organisations can enforce attendance or monitor actions, they cannot compel genuine collaboration, creativity, or engagement. Excessive control can erode trust, breed resentment, and result in disengagement or burnout—particularly among highly skilled professionals and Generation Z, who expect autonomy and respect in the workplace.
The Path Forward: Adaptive Influence
The future of work demands a transition from command-and-control leadership to an emphasis on influence and empowerment.
Instead of insisting,
“You must be in the office X days,”
or
“I need to see every minute of your activity,”
leaders might ask:
“How can we best collaborate to achieve our shared goals?”
“What support do you need to excel, regardless of location?”
“How can we establish trust and clear expectations that foster autonomy?”
The paradox is that relinquishing the illusion of direct control often results in greater influence over outcomes. Teams that feel trusted and empowered, united by a common purpose, are more likely to thrive—regardless of physical proximity. Ultimately, the compulsion for tight control may reveal more about leadership anxiety than team performance. Embracing trust and empowerment is essential for navigating the evolving landscape of work.
It is time to move forward and let go of outdated notions of control.
