Andy Jassy, Amazon's CEO, recently made a decision to Mandate working In-Office 5 Days a week.

Why?

Per statements, "When we look back over the last five years, we continue to believe that the advantages of being together in the office are significant... I’ve previously explained these benefits, but in summary, we’ve observed that it’s easier for our teammates to learn, model, practice, and strengthen our culture; collaborating, brainstorming, and inventing are simpler and more effective; teaching and learning from one another are more seamless; and, teams tend to be better connected to one another."

Except, is any of this "True"?

When your argument begins with "We Believe" and "We've Observed", these are not things that are based on Facts as much as Perception.

Which is the Issue.

When you look at the Facts of Return-To-Office Mandates, you begin to see that "All" of the Reasons Leaders are giving to Force a Return are Not Based in "Any" Reality.

Rather, we are seeing Leader's False Perceptions and Fears.

These Leaders are not "Seeing" Innovation, but that doesn't mean Innovation is not Occurring.

Research has shown that "More" Innovation and Disruption has with Remote Teams due to Improved Technology than In-Office Teams.

These Leaders are not "Seeing" Culture and Collaboration.

Yet, many people are showing their Collaboration with Teams around the World have become "Significantly" better due to Remote Work.

From Amazon, "I can’t hop onto an 8 a.m. meeting with the folks in HQ2 or the East Coast anymore... When I was at home, I could jump on early or late meetings pretty easily, but I’m physically unable to do that now."

There are a few people who agree with Jassy, essentially saying that the reasons people are giving to remain Remote would have been "Unthinkable" before the Pandemic...

But is that "Really" a Reason?

When the Car was created, many people said that it was "Unthinkable" to stop using Horses.

Yet, where are we now?

Today people believe it to be Unthinkable to Seriously use Horses.

This is how "Progress" Happens.

The Reality around Remote Work is that "All" of the Data Reveals the Exact same Message.

Remote and Hybrid Models are Significantly Better Models.

Productivity has Increased.

Innovation has Increased.

Employee Accountability has Increased.

World-Wide Communication and Team Building have Increased.

Work-Life Relationships have Improved.

Every Team that has made "Mandates" has encountered the Exact Same Problems, "All" due to the Psychophysiological Reality of being Human.

But, all of this begs the Question.

If "All" of the Data Reveals the "Same" Thing - that Remote/Hybrid Work is "Significantly" Better - Then "Why" would Leaders Still make the "Obviously" Poor Decision to "Mandate" Retuning to the Office?

Is there something "Else" that Leaders are perhaps Afraid of?

If so, what is it that they are Terrified of?

Well, I have now heard 3 Theories.

The First 2 Make Sense and may have Truth, but I find the 3rd to be the Most Intriguing and perhaps the Strongest.

One Theory says that the Mandates are a way to "Pass the Blame" onto Employees when C-Suite Executives attempt to explain Poor Results to Shareholders.

Since Shareholders "Expect" the C-Suite to Act when they "Determine" a Problem, the Executives blaming the Voiceless Employees now have to "Act" on Forcing Employees back In-Office.

The Problem here is that, obviously from the Data, this is simply Not True.

If the Results are Mediocre, it is because the Direction of Leadership is Failing, not because the Employees are.

The Second Theory says that the Mandates are a way to "Hopefully" get Employees to Quit instead of requiring the Company to do Large Lay-Offs.

If this is the case, it has Failed Dramatically.

Companies are "Still" doing Mass Lay-Offs because Employees are Actively "Not" Quitting.

The Employees have Wisened Up to this Tactic and are saying, "Go Ahead, Fire Me."

Some have called it Insubordination, Quiet Quitting, Disengagement or Active Disengagement.

The Results are all the Same - Most Employees Remain.

The only Levels of Employees who have Vacated En Mass after Mandates have been Upper Management and C-Suite actually.

Those individuals are the "Minority" of those who would be Targeted for Lay-Offs, if they were being considered at all.

Both of these Theories are, of course, very possible and even likely, but I recently read a Third Theory that I speaks to the Reality We are Seeing Better.

The Cult of the CEO is Finished.

This is what Leaders are "Most" Afraid of.

See, in Traditional Management Theory, it states that People do not "Want" to work, and so "Need" someone to Oversee them - a Manager.

This belief grew into the Idea that the CEO "Oversaw" Everything, and because of this "They" make Success Happen in an Organization.

This creates what is essentially a "Cult" around the Leader.

We see this Reflected in "How" we Look at C-Suite Executives.

Do you Know who Jeff Bezos is?

Do you Know who Elon Musk is?

Do you Know who Sam Altman is?

Do you Know who Mark Zuckerberg is?

Now let me ask you, "Why" do you Know who all these people are?

Is it because you have met all of them?

Is it because you think they are the best and most ethical human beings in existence?

Is it because they have gone out of the way to help you directly?

Of course not (at least not for the majority of people anyhow).

So "Why" do we Know them?

Because they all have a Cult Following.

This is essentially what the Cult of the CEO is.

It is the belief that the Leader that Oversees everything is a Maker of Success, and the more Successful their Organizations, the more we must "Follow" them.

As these Organizations have Grown, we put a Higher and Higher Emphasis on the CEO, until they have a deific Following.

But here's the Real Question.

Do they "Deserve" to be seen as "deities"?

Are they "Really" Responsible for "Most" of an Organization's Success?

Do their Dictates "Truly" Make the Organization "More" Successful?

The answer to "All" of these is No.

They are Not "deities".

They are Simple Humans, most of them "Deeply" Flawed given their Lives coming to Light.

They are Not Responsible for "Most" of an Organization's Success.

The "Vast" Majority of the Work is done by the People, and without these Individuals, these Organizations would Cease to Function.

They are also Not Responsible for Most of an Organization's Success.

If you look at Company's Succes, you discover that "Most" of the Success is Obtained through Category Dominance.

In Most Industries, the Category King/Queen owns about 75% of the market, and others battle for the Remainder.

What this means is that, perhaps in the "Early" Days of a Company, the CEO is the "Visionary" who helps Design a New Market.

But after the Market has been Taken?

The CEO, and the Entire C-Suite for that Matter, does "Very" Little to Increase Success from that point.

Actually, the C-Suite has a Higher Likelihood to "Destroy" a Company than to Improve the Company, as we have seen with the Multitude of Scandals from Top Companies over the years.

This is also "Why" we Attack Leaders for their Failures and Wrongdoings - when "deities" reveal themselves to be Villains, we feel Deeply Betrayed, and React Viscerally.

When people start "Really" Investigating "Why" the Top Leaders in Most Organizations get paid so much, they start to find their answer...

There are No Good Reasons for them to make as much as they are.

When Employees begin to Realize this, they begin to Question the Cult of the CEO.

This is what Leaders are Terrified of.

When the "Wizard" is Revealed to be a simple man behind a Curtain, the "Wizard" has no more Power (a Wizard of Oz reference for those who do not recognize it since it is an 85 year old movie).

When people Realize their Leaders are Not deific, it becomes a Challenge to the Leader's Authority.

I actually questioned "What" CEO's "Actually" do for their Organizations a few months ago and made a very simple Determination.

An AI (as Flawed as they are today) could do "Everything" a CEO does today, Better.

Does this mean that we should Fire CEOs and hire CEAIs?

Again, due to the Flaws of AI, this is "Not" me stating that AI should Lead Organizations, but rather that CEOs are "So" Detached from the Realities of their Organizations that they are essentially Useless.

CEOs are "Not" Improving Productivity.

CEOs are "Not" Improving their Organizations.

CEOs are "Not" Improving their Workforce, given the Rise of Burnout and Decreases in Standards of Living for Employees.

So what are CEOs Doing?

People are beginning to Question This which is "Why" CEOs are trying to "Go Back to the Old Ways".

Ironically, as CEOs say they "Want" and "Need" Innovation, their Fear of Losing their Cult Following is Causing them to Revert "Against" Innovation and Change.

So, it is Unsurprising to me when Amazon Employees start saying, "This is not 'going back' to how it was before. It's just going backwards."

They are Right, it "Is" Moving Backwards.

What is really interesting in Amazon's case is that 30,000 Employees have United together to Rate Jassy and, "provide them with clear insight into the impact of this policy on employees, including the challenges identified and proposed solutions."

What was Jassy's Final Rating?

1.4 on a Scale of 1 to 5.

For those who are not Statistics Nerds, this is a "Really" Bad Score.

It might "Look" alright until you Realize the Lowest Score is a 1.

In Statistics, starting at a 1 instead of a 0 usually allows the Scores to "Look" better.

However, if we want to get Technical here, if the Score "Did" go to a 0, Jassy would have likely been Rated at Less than a 1.

But what is "More" Revealing is the fact that 30,000 Employees got together to discuss a "Better" plan of action.

These are "Not" 30,000 Employees who are Aimless without a Leader.

There are "Not" 30,000 Employees who "Need" a Manger to make sure they do work.

It is 30,000 Employees who are Leading themselves and coming up with "Better" Solutions than those in Leadership Positions.

So tell me again, What is the Role of the CEO?

Obviously, the Employees understand their Situations, Problems, and "Have" Solutions that their CEO does Not.

What we are seeing, not only at Amazon but across the board with these Mandates, are CEOs who are "Losing" Power, and Employees who are "Realizing" their Leaders are Not Worthy of their Cult Followings.

It is Why so many Employees have Stood Together, Against their Leaders, and Against these Mandates.

The Employees "Know" that their Hybrid and Remote Work Situations are better than anything Leaders are Mandating, and Employees are making the Decision to Ignore these Mandates.

The Employees have Discovered their Leaders are "Not" deities, and are Choosing to No Longer Worship them as if they were.

Employees are Discovering how much "More" they Know than their Leaders, and how they can Create "Better" Solutions than their Leaders.

Leaders are Losing their Stranglehold of Power.

Now, does this mean that Amazon is going to fall out of existence shortly?

Absolutely Not.

They are Still the Category King/Queen of their Industry, and will Likely Remain that way.

However, if Amazon does "Not" Innovate, then eventually a New Company "Will" Rise Up, Design a New Category, and will put Amazon Out.

When Leaders become Unable to Create that Future, they "Should" Fear for their Jobs, and indeed this is Why most CEOs Do Not Last over 3 years in Today's World.

I also Believe that Amazon "Could" be Overthrown in the Near Future.

Online Shopping is already being threatened by TikTok where Creators can Sell Directly or Affiliate Directly through the Platform.

Or if a Company were to Design a Functional AI where you told it what you needed, and it searched through it's own database (not Amazon's) to find you the Best Shopping Options based on your Preferences, and served them to you on a Platter...

Well Amazon would No Longer be Needed.

If Jassy becomes Unable to come up with a Viable Solution, and his Decisions are Openly being Dismissed by Large Swathes of Employees who "Also" Create Better Solutions....

What is the CEO needed for?

The Short-Sighted and Oblivious Return-To-Office "Mandates" are starting to Reveal that CEOs are becoming Irrelevant.

This is also Why I've been an Advocate for a Chief Regenerative Design Officer, or CRDO.

The Role of CEO "Is" becoming Insignificant in a world where Employees Do Not Need to be Babysat, and there are "Many" Easy Ways to Prove Productivity Remotely that Employees are "Happy" to be Accountable to Proving.

Whereas the Role of CRDO is actually "Needed" more than Ever because of One Simple Reason - Burnout.

It is the "Single" Largest Problem that Leaders face today.

If Leaders "Were" to Solve It, it would Solve "Every" Problem Leaders have today.

Plus, if you Mixed this "With" the Leadership that Employees are Already Demonstrating, Organizations could Rapidly Grow as Employees Band Together.

It would be "True" Intrapreneurship on a Scale we've Never Seen before, Unhindered by the Bottlenecks of Old Models.

The Cult of the CEO may be Dead, but Leaders are Still Needed in Today's World.

But the Leaders that Create the Future will be Focused on Designing a Regenerative Legacy.

The Cult Of The CEO Is Finished

What We Are Seeing With The Return-To-Office Mandates At Amazon And Elsewhere

What will you write today?